• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main














Title: Citrus and competing products in 20 Meridian, Mississippi grocery stores
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027147/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus and competing products in 20 Meridian, Mississippi grocery stores
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Smith, Cecil Nuckols
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1955
Copyright Date: 1955
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027147
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aen7458 - LTUF
18279444 - OCLC
000926758 - AlephBibNum

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Main
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
Full Text




Bulletin 561 May 1955


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA







Citrus and Competing Products Sales in 20 Meridian,

Mississippi, Grocery Stores, Four Monthly Periods, 1950-51


By CECIL N. SMITH
Associate Agricultural Economist


Cents
Orangeade 100
Citrus Sections
Hot-Pock Concentrated Juices 90
Frozen Concentrated Juices

Single-Strength Juices 80

70

60

50

40

Fresh Citrus 30

20

10


Low Middle High Downtown Small
Income Income Income
Income Area Store Groups

Fig. 1.-Composition of the consumer's citrus dollar in five income area
store groups, Meridian, Mississippi, four monthly periods, 1950-51.






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














CONTENTS
PAGE

SUMMARY .... ........ .... -....... .. 3

INTRODUCTION ....................-..................... ...... .. 4

Purpose and Scope ------...............-- ----.. --- -- -- ---....... --- .-..... 5

Research Procedure ..-....... --...... ...-- ...-- .......- .------...-.-- ..-.. 6

SELECTIONS AND RATE OF TURNOVER OF PROCESSED CITRUS PRODUCTS ........ 9

Rapid Stock Turnover Desirable -.............-... .----------......---- 9

Individual Commodity Selections and Rate of Turnover ......................-- 9

MONTHLY FLUCTUATIONS IN SALES --....----...---.-------..- ----.....----. 16

Sales Value and Volume ...---........... ... -------...-------...----.--- 16

Weekly Variation in Sales Value ..-...---- ------...........--- ...---........- 18

Monthly Sales Patterns .......... ...--....................... .... ..-- ...-- 21

COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS .-......-- ...-- ..----..---.-......----------... 21

Demand for Citrus Products ...... ----... ------------...----.....--- .- ..-- 21

Monthly Average Prices .---....--..- --............---.... .....----...--... 23

Competition between Commodity Groups --.....-....----.....- .------..--- .. 23

Source of Fresh Citrus ..--....-- ....- .........- ....-- ....----- ... ........ 29

Pink and White Grapefruit .--.......... ---... ......-----------... 31

Can Sizes .... ........... ......-- ..-------- ---... ------. ...-.-- .. 31

Sweetened vs. Unsweetened Grapefruit Juice ...-.............----..- ...-...... 33

Single-Strength Juice Equivalent Prices ..........--......... ..............-- 33

Store Purchase Patterns and Consumer Preferences --......................---. 35

A PPEN DIX -... -----..... ---- ----......... ... .......... ................. ............... ... 37










Citrus and Competing Products Sales in 20 Meridian,
Mississippi, Grocery Stores, Four Monthly Periods, 1950-51

By CECIL N. SMITH 1

SUMMARY
This bulletin presents findings of a study concerned with the
rate of inventory turnover, sales patterns and extent of compe-
tition among various fresh and processed citrus products. The
study was conducted in a group of retail grocery stores selected
to represent the buying habits of consumers with different in-
come levels in Meridian, Mississippi, a typical small Southern
city. Presented in this report are the results of an analysis of
weekly sales data on fresh and processed citrus and com-
peting products obtained from 20 retail grocery stores during
August and October 1950 and February and May 1951. The
price and quantity data were obtained under actual store oper-
ating conditions.
Inventories of processed products carried in many stores were
high relative to the rate of stock turnover. In several stores
only one or two annual inventory turnovers of processed citrus
products were recorded. More than half the 20 stores had
fewer than 10 annual turnovers of most citrus products. In
addition, some stores carried very large selections of brands
and can sizes of certain canned citrus products. Much deteriora-
tion of product quality must necessarily have resulted from
these practices.

SAcknowledgment is made to Dr. C. V. Noble, former head of the Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics and now Dean of the College of Agriculture,
and Dr. H. G. Hamilton, present head of the Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of Florida. for their work in planning and directing
the study. Credit is due Dr. D. C. Kimmel, formerly assistant agricultural
economist, for collecting the data and initiating the analysis. Mr. William
G. O'Regan, statistical consultant and assistant professor in the Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics at the University of Florida, gave many
constructive criticisms concerning the manuscript. The writer is also
indebted to the members of the Department of Agricultural Economics and
others who assisted in conducting this study and offered helpful suggestions
in the preparation of the manuscript. In addition, appreciation is expressed
to the managers and personnel of the Meridian grocery stores who coop-
erated in this study.
The research on which this report is based was done under authority
of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (RMA, Title II). This is the
second report on the study in Meridian. The first, Use of Citrus Products
in Meridian, Mississippi, Households, Spring of 1951, by D. C. Kimmel, was
published in December 1952 as Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 509.







4 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

As compared to large variations in the quantities of fresh
citrus sold from month to month, those of most processed
products were rather stable. The consumer purchase pattern
of processed citrus and competing products did not appear to
be inversely related to that of fresh fruit in any income area
store group. The quantity of processed orange products changed
less from month to month than did that of processed grapefruit
products. The level of sales of processed citrus products was
more stable in the high income area group than in the low in-
come area class.
Fresh citrus accounted for more than half of all expenditures
for fresh and processed citrus products in every income area
store group studied except the high income area class. Con-
sumers who did their grocery shopping in the high income area
group of stores tended to buy relatively more processed products
than purchasers in the low income area store group.
More than 70 percent of the fresh oranges sold in the stores
studied during the four monthly periods were from Florida.
Except in the high income area class, 60 percent or more of the
grapefruit sold was from Florida. Pink grapefruit accounted
for less than half the volume of grapefruit sales in the low in-
come area store group but for more than two-thirds of that in
the high income area class.
Results of the consumer preference study conducted in
Meridian in the spring of 1951 supported in many respects the
findings of the store inquiry. It is probable that many, if not
most, substitutions of one product for another were on the basis
of wants and availability rather than on price relationships.

INTRODUCTION
Citrus products are available to the consumer in many forms
-fresh oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, lemons and limes;2
single strength juices; hot-pack and frozen concentrated juices;
and others. Rising trends in per capital consumption of many of
these products show that they have found increasing approval
by household grocery buyers.
These fresh and processed citrus products compete not only
with deciduous fruits and other food and non-food products but
also with each other for the consumers' favor. The extent of
this competition is believed to be different among consumers
with various levels of incomes and living in separate regions.
2 No data on either lemons or limes were obtained in this study.







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 5

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report is concerned with the rate of turnover and the
sales pattern of various citrus products in a group of grocery
stores in Meridian, Mississippi, during four monthly periods in
1950 and 1951. It also deals with various aspects of the com-
petitive relationships between different citrus products and
groups of products.
Although more citrus products are consumed in the densely
populated Northeastern and Midwestern markets than in closer
areas, the South is nevertheless a fast growing region and an
expanding market for Florida citrus products. This study was
conducted in a Southern city in order to provide the citrus in-
dustry with an analysis of some of the detailed demand char-
acteristics of a specialized segment of this market.
A study of the population data of seven Southern states 3
indicated a 65-35 percentage distribution between the white and
colored population. Other information showed a large number
of small cities, most of which had a variety of industries. The
criteria for choosing a city in which to conduct the study were
that it be in one of the seven Southern states, have a popula-
tion range from 25,000 to 50,000, have an approximate 65-35
white-colored population ratio, have a variety of industries, and
be of sufficient distance from Florida so that citrus fruit from
other producing areas would be sold there. Meridian, Missis-
sippi, was chosen as satisfactorily meeting these requirements.
Its 1950 population was 42,000, of which 65 percent was white
and 35 percent colored. Meridian is a trade, transportation
and manufacturing center with a large number of industrial
establishments.
Weekly data on sales of various fresh and processed citrus
products, plus those of apples and certain other competing
fruit products, were obtained from 20 retail grocery stores in
Meridian during August and October 1950 and February and
May 1951. These stores were chosen to represent the pur-
chases of consumers with low, medium and high incomes. In
addition, data were obtained on sales in a group of four large
grocery stores located in the downtown area of Meridian, a
part of the city in which consumers representing most income
levels shopped, and also in several small or neighborhood stores.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Caro-
lina, and Tennessee.








6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Sales of fresh and processed citrus and competing products
on which data were obtained in this study amounted to almost
$44,000 in all 20 stores during the four months of the study.
Fifty-eight percent of these sales consisted of fresh fruit (citrus
and apples) and 42 percent of processed products (citrus prod-
ucts, non-citrus single-strength juices and frozen concentrated
grape juice).

TABLE 1.-TOTAL SALES VALUE OF FRESH AND PROCESSED PRODUCTS
STUDIED, 20 RETAIL GROCERY STORES, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOUR
MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.
No. of Value of Sales Percent of
Income Area Store Group Stores in Dollars Total Sales
Low income .---.....--..... -... ....-- . 8 9,920.29 22.5
Middle income .......................--3 5,232.89 12.0
High income ..................-......... 2 4,063.99 9.3
Downtown ............................ 4 23,722.58 54.3
Sm all ...................................... 3 758.76 1.8
Total ........................... 20 43,598.51 100.0

Over half the total value of sales was made in the downtown
stores (Table 1). These four stores had average total sales
for the four months of nearly $6,000, as compared to $2,000
in high income area stores, $1,700 in middle income area stores,
$1,200 in low income area stores, and $250 in the small neigh-
borhood stores (Table 2). Characteristics of the stores in the
various groups are briefly described in the appendix.

RESEARCH PROCEDURE
Data on total sales of the products studied were obtained
weekly in each of the four monthly periods with the expecta-
tion that movement in those periods would be a fair indicator
of the sales in each of the four seasons. Stores were chosen
on a judgment basis. Incomes of the predominant consumer
groups which shopped there and willingness of the manage-
ment to cooperate were the main criteria in choosing individual
stores. Each store was visited one or more times each week
while the study was in progress in order to obtain information
on sales and prices of each commodity studied. A running in-
ventory was kept by recording all receipts and noting the quan-
tity of each product on hand at the end of each week.
No variables were controlled in this study. Price and volume
of commodities were reported as they were actually observed.





TALE 2.-4OTAL SALES OF FRESHH AND PROCtSSED CITRUS AND COMPETING F'RUIT DUCTS IN 20 RETAIL GROCERY STORES,
MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, DURING AUGUST AND OCTOBER 1950 AND FEBRUARY AND MAY 1951.

Processed Fruit Total Fresh and Processed
Income Area Fresh Fruit Sales* Product Salest Citrus and Competing
Store Group Product Sales
and Store Number Percent of Percent of Percent Each
Value in All Sales*t in Value in All Sales*t in Value in Store of Total
Dollars Each Store Dollars Each Store Dollars Group Sales

Low Income:
Store No. 1 ................. 1,710.79 69.7 742.10 30.3 2,452.89 25.0
Store No. 2 ...... ........ 898.73 60.9 576.19 39.1 1,474.92 15.0
Store No. 3 ................. 773.60 63.1 452.43 36.9 1,226.03 12.5
Store No. 4 .....-....-... .. 837.48 68.9 378.36 31.1 1,215.84 12.4 0
Store No. 5 .........---- ..-- 818.44 70.5 342.00 29.5 1,160.44 11.8 p
Store No. 6 ...--............ 528.62 59.5 358.88 40.5 887.50 9.0
Store No. 7 ............ ... 524.79 66.0 269.63 34.0 794.42 8.1
Store No. 8 ........-- ....- 379.24 62.4 229.01 37.6 608.25 6.2
Group Average ............... 808.96 65.9 418.58 34.1 1,227.54 ___
Middle Income:
Store No. 9 ............... 1,368.44 58.8 957.95 41.2 2,326.39 44.4
Store No. 10 ................ 1,078.69 50.5 1,055.65 49.5 2,134.34 40.8
Store No. 11 ............... 467.05 60.5 305.11 39.5 772.16 14.8
Group Average ............... 971.39 55.7 772.90 44.3 1,744.29
High Income: I
Store No. 12 ............... 1,258.43 51.5 1,186.19 48.5 2,444.62 60.2 o
Store No. 13 -............ 755.86 46.7 863.51 53.3 1,619.37 39.8
Group Average .... 1,007.15 49.6 1,024.85 50.4 2,032.00 c_
Downtown:
Store No. 14 .......... 4,579.96 49.3 4,711.59 50.7 9,291.55 39.2
Store No. 15 .............. 3,779.15 59.0 2,625.31 41.0 6,404.46 27.0
Store No. 16 ............ 3,312.28 62.2 2,016.76 37.8 5,329.04 22.4
Store No. 17 ...-....... .. 1,479.82 54.9 1,217.71 45.1 2,697.53 11.4
Group Average ............... 3,287.80 55.4 2,642.84 44.6 5,930.64..
Small:
Store No. 18 ................ 213.84 64.6 117.17 35.4 331.01 43.6
Store No. 19 .............. 144.09 61.6 89.65 38.4 233.74 30.8
Store No. 20 .......... .... 154.27 79.5 39.74 20.5 194.01 25.6
Group Average ................... 170.73 67.5 82.19 32.5 252.92 _

Total 20 Stores ................. 25,063.57 57.5 18,534.94 42.5 43,598.51 100.0
Fresh oranges, grapefruit, tangerines and satsumas; and apples.
tProcessed Citrus products; single-strength apple, grape, pineapple, prune and tomato juices: and frozen concentrated grape juice.








8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

The data obtained were of events under actual store operating
conditions which were presumed to be normal.4 The data were
analyzed for various competitive relationships and seasonal
purchase patterns. Sufficient information was not available to
make estimates of the overall seasonal pattern of sales, degree
of competition between various products or commodity groups,
and other factors. Thus, for most measures of competition
and other comparisons considered, the analysis pertains only
to the various income area store groups and is not an estimate
for the entire Meridian market.
Although most of the commodities studied were available in
some form throughout the four months, they were often not
obtainable in the same size or quality. For example, most of
the oranges sold in August were California Valencias but Flor-
ida oranges of various varieties predominated in the other three
months. Frequently the same brands or can sizes of processed
products were not stocked throughout the course of the four
monthly periods.
In the analysis which follows, the per-unit price data gen-
erally used were obtained by dividing the total sales value
of a product by the total quantity (pounds) sold. These prices
are weighted averages and are not necessarily the prices quoted
by the stores for various products. The quantities and prices
of orange juice, for instance, are composite figures for the
product in all can sizes, rather than 46-ounce, 18-ounce or 6-
ounce cans.

"Variations in the quantity of any commodity purchased from week to
week or from month to month may be influenced not only by price changes
but also by any one or more of these or other factors: (1) Shifting of pur-
chases from one store to another; (2) unavailability of any specified brand
or can size of processed products or kind, size, or variety of fresh fruit; (3)
consumers shopping most heavily on pay days irrespective of prices; (4)
changes in prices or quality of competing products; (5) bad weather during
the weekend when the major part of grocery buying is usually done; (6) the
influence of special displays of the product under study or of competing
products; (7) the influence of advertising; and (8) differences in store
layout and merchandising practices. It was also difficult to measure the
effect of shifts between different priced brands and between can sizes. A
change to another can size or to a different brand could give the appear-
ance of a price change. In addition, the failure to observe a wide range of
prices during a period short enough to preclude important shifts in demand
was an important factor in the difficulty encountered in trying to develop
price-quantity relationships. The validity of conclusions drawn from various
comparisons between products, stores and seasons is limited throughout
this report. This is due primarily to the lack of availability of identical
products in all situations but also to dissimilarities in store layout and
merchandising practices as well as other factors.








Citrus and Competing Products Sales 9

SELECTIONS AND RATE OF TURNOVER OF PROCESSED
CITRUS PRODUCTS
RAPID STOCK TURNOVER DESIRABLE
Much variation was evident in rate of movement from stocks
of processed citrus products, as well as in number of brands
and can sizes carried by each of the 20 stores in the study.
Many stores had a very slow rate of turnover of some or all
of the products which they stocked. An entire year would have
been required in some of the stores studied for inventories on
hand to be depleted had no additional supplies been procured
and had sales continued at the same rate as those in the four
monthly periods covered in this study.
Practices such as these result in less profit to the grocery
stores following them and severe deterioration occurs in product
quality. This quality deterioration is detrimental to the interests
not only of the grocery trade but also to those of the citrus
industry.5 Repeat customers are required in the successful
merchandising of any food or other nondurable product, but such
customers are not developed if only poor quality merchandise
is supplied. It is not unreasonable to assume that customers
who have purchased low quality products in a store will substi-
tute other brands or products. Another possibility is that
consumers may transfer their patronage to other stores.
Both the citrus processing industry and the retail grocery
trade have a great deal at stake in seeing that processed citrus
products are not left to deteriorate on grocers' shelves but
that they move swiftly into consumption channels. The grocery
trade prospers by making fuller use of shelf space and having
less capital tied up in inventories which deteriorate and be-
come less desirable to consumers after a period of time. The
citrus industry benefits from a probable increase in consump-
tion due to increased customer satisfaction with its products.

INDIVIDUAL COMMODITY SELECTIONS AND RATE
OF TURNOVER
The following discussion is concerned with the number of
can sizes, brands and selections carried 6 and the rate of turn-
"In one store some canned citrus products were stocked which were at
least five years of age. Canned citrus products deteriorate rapidly when
stored longer than a year.
Selections refer to the number of choices of brands and can sizes of a
given product that was available on store shelves. The average number of
brands times the average number of can sizes does not necessarily equal
the average number of selections.







TABLE 3.-WEEKLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF SELECTIONS STOCKED AND ANNUAL NUMBER OF INVENTORY TURNOVERS OF CERTAIN
PROCESSED CITRUS PRODUCTS, 20 RETAIL GROCERY STORES, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.

Commodity
Single- Single- I
Income Area Single- Strength Strength Frozen Con- Grapefruit
Store Group and Strength Grapefruit Blended centrated Orange Sections Orangeade
Store Number Orange Juice Juice Juice Juice
Selec- Turn- Selec- Turn- Selec- Turn- Selec- Turn- Selec- Turn- Selec- Turn-
tions overs tions overs tions [ overs tions overs tions overs tions overs
____Number INuumberuber Number Number Number Number Number Number [Number I Number Number

Low Income:
Store No. 1 5.0 19 4.5 15 0.8 18 .. ... 1.0 4 1.0 21
Store No. 2 4.5 6 4.2 5 0.8 3 .... .. 1.8 1 1.0 19
Store No. 3 5.0 7 4.8 5 0.8 3 .- ... 1.0 2 1.0 12
Store No. 4 4.8 11 4.2 10 .... .... --. .... 1.0 5 1.0 13
Store No. 5 7.2 5 2.8 2 0.8 2 1.0 10 2.2 2 1.2 10
Store No. 6 3.5 16 2.2 8 ... .... 1.5 14 .... ... 3.5 16
Store No. 7 4.2 15 8.5 7 -. .. 2.5 7 0.5 4 3.0 8
Store No. 8 3.5 12 5.0 4 0.2 5 1.0 12 0.8 1 3.0 11
Group Average 4.7 9 4.5 5 0.6 3 1.1 13 1.2 2 1.8 13
Middle Income:
Store No. 9 6.8 7 5.2 4 .. .. 3.5 18 1.8 8 1.2 14
Store No. 10 5.8 7 7.2 4 0.2 5 2.5 29 3.0 3 1.0 10
Store No. 11 3.5 4 3.2 5 1.5 1
Group Average 5.3 6 5.2 4 0.2 5 3.0 23 2.1 4 1.1 12
High Income:
Store No. 12 6.2 7 5.0 5 3.5 6 4.5 16 3.5 6 1.5 10
Store No. 13 8.0 6 6.0 8 1.8 10 3.2 30 3.2 6 1.0 9
Group Average 7.1 7 5.5 5 2.6 8 3.9 21 3.4 6 1.2 9
Downtown:
Store No. 14 3.5 21 6.5 17 2.0 14 3.8 24 1.0 22 3.0 21
Store No. 15 5.0 16 4.5 14 0.8 15 3.0 39 1.2 13 1.0 16
Store No. 16 4.2 9 5.5 6 1.5 3 2.2 21 2.5 6 2.0 7
Store No. 17 12.5 1 11.5 1 2.0 2 4.0 11 7.0 2 1.5 1
Group Average 6.3 8 7.0 7 1.6 9 3.2 21 2.9 5 1.9 11
Small: I
Store No. 18 2.2 14 3.0 4 0.2 2 1.2 25 0.8 1
Store No. 19 4.2 8 4.8 3 0.5 23 ...
Store No. 20 1.5 14 1.0 13 0.2 8 .. .. 1.2 7
Group Average 2.7 10 2.9 3 0.3 10 1.2 25 0.8 1 1.2 7








Citrus and Competing Products Sales 11

over 7 of canned single-strength citrus juices, frozen and hot-
pack concentrated citrus juices, grapefruit sections and
orangeade in various stores and store groups in Meridian dur-
ing the period studied. The weekly average number of selec-
tions and rate of turnover of these products are shown in
Table 3.
Canned Single-Strength Orange Juice.-The average number
of brands of canned single-strength orange juice handled
weekly by each store varied from 1.0 to 6.2 (Table 4). A range
of 1.5 to 12.5 different selections in one to three different can
sizes was available at each store. A larger average number of
selections was carried in the stores of the high income area
group than in any other.
Average yearly turnovers of canned single-strength orange
juice varied from 1 to 21. 8 The lowest turnover rates were
noted in the middle and high income area store groups. Among
the various store groups no consistent pattern was followed
in rate of turnover of canned single-strength orange juice
from one month to another. That of the downtown store group
ranged from 8 to 9 times a year, while the low income area
group varied from 6 to 13 times, the low being in February
and the high in October (Table 5). Other groups also had
wide variations in their patterns from one month to another.
February was the month in which heaviest inventories of
orange juice were carried by the downtown, low income area and
small store groups. Largest inventories by the middle and high in-
come area groups were in May. Those stores which were units
of chains had inventories in February which were 158 percent
higher than those in October but their sales increased only 19
percent. Independent store inventories in February were 43
percent larger than the October level; sales were up 37 percent.
Rate of movement to inventory in chain stores during each
month was twice that in independently owned stores.
The annual rate of inventory turnover was derived in two stages. First,
the average number of weeks required to dispose of beginning weekly inven-
tories plus weekly receipts was obtained by dividing the sum of these two
figures by the sum of weekly sales. Second, the average annual number of
turnovers was derived by dividing the average number of weeks required
for average weekly inventories (plus receipts) to turn over into 52.
SA negative relationship was noted between the number of selections
carried and the ratio of total movement to total inventory. Price levels
and pricing policies of individual stores, display techniques, advertising
policies, quality and other factors all contributed to making the rate of move-
ment what it was. These are variables which were not measured during the
course of the field work for the study and, in any circumstances, would be
very difficult to evaluate.








TABLE 4.-WEEKLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF BRANDS, CAN SIZES, AND SELECTIONS STOCKED, ANNUAL NUMBER OF INVENTORY
TURNOVERS AND VOLUME OF SALES OF CANNED SINGLE-STRENGTH ORANGE JUICE; 20 RETAIL GROCERY STORES, MERIDIAN,
MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.

Annual Inventory Turnovers by Can Size Volume
Income Area Selec- Can of
Store Group and tions Sizes Brands Number- Sales
Store Number All Pounds
_Number Number Number 46 oz. 8 oz. 12 oz. 6 oz. 4 oz. Sizes

Low Income: I
Store No. 1 .. -. 5.0 3.0 2.0 18 21 17 29 19 1,784
Store No. 2 .........-- 4.5 3.0 2.0 6 5 17 29 6 1,293
Store No. 3 .............. 5.0 3.2 2.2 7 5 .... 15 22 7 1,158
Store No. 4 ......... ---4.8 2.8 2.5 12 10 19 16 11 785
Store No. 5 .............. 7.2 2.5 4.5 8 2 .6 5 712
Store No. 6 ............. 3.5 1.8 2.8 22 13 .. 16 531
Store No. 7 .--......... 4.2 2.5 2.5 19 14 3 15 407
Store No. 8 .............. 3.5 2.8 2.5 9 8 5.. 5 12 224
Group Average .............. 4.7 2.6 2.6 9 8 16 14 22 9 862
Middle Income:
Store No. 9 ........... 6.8 3.0 4.2 9 5 7 --- 7 1,512
Store No. 10 .--.....- 5.8 3.0 4.0 7 5 -7 7-. 7 1,918
Store No. 11 ...--....- 3.5 2.0 2.2 9 3 4 672
Group Average ......... 5.3 2.7 3.5 8 4 7 ---- 6 1,367
High Income:
Store No. 12 .......--- 6.2 3.0 4.2 9 4 7 ... 7 1,297
Store No. 13 ..--. ...- 8.0 3.0 5.2 9 4 ... 10 6 770
Group Average ------------7.1 3.0 4.8 9 4 -7 7 1,034

Downtown: '
Store No. 14 .... 3.5 2.0 1.0 21 21 .. 21 3,277
Store No. 15 ........... 5.0 3.0 2.0 19 10 31 15 16 4,808
Store No. 16 .......... 4.2 2.8 2.2 11 7 -.- 7 9 2,340
Store No. 17 ....... 12.5 2.8 6.2 1 1 1 1 786
Group Average .........-. 6.3 2.6 2.9 16 8 331 5_ 8 2,803
Small: .
Store No. 18 .......... 2.2 1.2 2.0 14 .... 4 .... 14 104
Store No. 19 .......... 4.2 2.0 4.2 7 9 -8 177
Store No. 20 ........ 1.5 1.0 1.5 .... 14 14 76
Group Average -----....-. 2.7 1.4 2.6 I .... 10 9 10 119








Citrus and Competing Products Sales 13

Canned Single-Strength Grapefruit Juice.-In practically
every income area store group except the downtown one, fewer
brands, can sizes and selections of single-strength grapefruit
juice were carried than of single-strength orange juice. In addi-
tion, rate of turnover was lower than for orange juice in every
store group and in all but two individual stores. Stores which
had high turnover rates for orange juice also had relatively
high rates for grapefruit juice.
The 46-ounce can of grapefruit juice moved at a faster rate
than any other size in every store in the middle income, high
income and downtown store groups. However, in three of

TABLE 5.-AVERAGE WEEKLY INVENTORIES AND QUANTITIES SOLD (BY
MONTHS) AND ANNUAL NUMBER OF INVENTORY TURNOVERS OF CANNED
SINGLE-STRENTH ORANGE JUICE, FIVE INCOME AREA STORE GROUPS,
MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, AUGUST AND OCTOBER 1950 AND FEBRUARY AND
MAY 1951.

Income Area Store Month
Group, Quantities I Monthly
and Rate of Turnover j August I October Februaryl May Average
Low Income:
Weekly inventory-
pounds --.....-......-- 2,044 1,855 5,475 3,894 13,268
Weekly movement--
pounds --.......---..--. 503 409 682 662 2,255
Annual turnover--
tim es .......................... 13 12 6 9 9
Middle Income:
Weekly inventory-
pounds ..................... 1,479 1,907 3,357 4,108 11,663
Weekly movement-
pounds --.......-- ........ I 256 284 361 424 1,383
Annual turnover- i
tim es ........................ | 9 8 6 5 1 6
High Income:
Weekly inventory--
pounds ...----...........----....... 1,270 775 1,404 1,998 5,448
Weekly movement-
pounds ............-- ........ 184 152 155 206 697
Annual turnover--
tim es ........-.... ...... .... 8 1 10 6 5 7
Downtown:
Weekly inventory-
pounds --.......----.... 6,353 5,052 6,512 4,574 23,487
Weekly movement-
pounds ....................- 1,037 792 1,050 765 3,734
Annual turnover-
times 8....... ............. 8 8 8 9 8
Small:
Weekly inventory-
pounds ..........-- --- 83 124 248 141 596
Weekly movement--
pounds ....-.........---- 36 25 20 32 113
Annual turnover-
times ...................... 23 10 4 12 10







14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

the low income area group stores and in all the small stores,
the rate of turnover was faster in 18-ounce than in 46-ounce
cans.
Each store group had larger inventories of grapefruit juice
in February than in any other month. Larger quantities were
moved in that month than in the other three studied in the
middle income, downtown and small store groups. In the low
income and high income area store groups the month of fastest
movement was May. The level of inventories in February was
more than double the October level in every income area store
class.
Blended Juice.-Fewer brands and can sizes of canned single-
strength blended orange and grapefruit juice were stocked than
was true of either orange or grapefruit juice. More selections
were carried by the high income and downtown stores than by
stores in the other income area groups. Three of the stores
in the low income area group and two in the middle income
area class did not stock blended juice.
The rate of turnover was approximately the same as that
of grapefruit juice. The stores which sold the largest propor-
tions of their stocks of orange and grapefruit juice also moved
higher proportions of their inventories of blended orange and
grapefruit juice. The average rate of turnover in various stores
varied from 2 to 23 times a year.
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice.-Only the 6-ounce can
size of frozen concentrated orange juice was carried by the
grocery stores studied. The average number of selections
stocked by individual stores ranged from 1.0 to 4.5.
Turnover of frozen concentrated orange juice was at a much
faster rate than that of single-strength juices. Annual turn-
overs varied from 7 to 39 times. Lowest rates of movement
were in the low income area store group.
Grapefruit Sections.-More selections, on the average, of
canned grapefruit sections were carried by the high income
area store group than by any other. Seven was the largest
average number stocked by any store. Except in two stores in
the downtown area, inventories turned over fewer than 10 times
a year.
Orangeade.-Relatively fewer selections of orangeade were
stocked than of any processed citrus product. The maximum
average number of brands carried by any store was three.
Seven of the 17 stores which stocked orangeade carried only









Citrus and Competing Products Sales 15


one brand. Every store selling it had 46-ounce cans but five
stores also carried the product in 12-ounce cans.
The turnover rate was fastest in the low income area and in the
middle income area groups. Here average rates were 13 and 12
times annually. Movement in individual stores varied from 1
to 21 complete stock turnovers each year.
In the three groups having the highest volume of orangeade
sales the largest inventory was carried in August, followed by
October, February and May. The pattern followed by the other
two groups-the high income area and small stores group-


Dollars
8,000

7,500


7,000

6,500




65,000




4,500

4,000
[ Apples .....v'.

Fresh 3,500
Fresh Citrus
3,000

Other Processed
Orangeade 2,500
Concentrated
Citrus Juices 000

Processed Single-Strength
Proceed 2Citrus Juices 1,500

1,000

Single-Strength 50
Non-Citrus Juices

0
August October February May

Month


Fig. 2.-Monthly value of sales of various fresh and processed citrus and
other commodities, downtown store group, four monthly periods, 1950-51.







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

varied widely from this prevailing pattern. However, all stores
sold more orangeade in August than in any of the other three
months.
MONTHLY FLUCTUATIONS IN SALES
SALES VALUE AND VOLUME
Sales of most processed products remained steady and differed
relatively little from month to month. In the four major in-
come area store groups the highest monthly sales value of all
processed products studied did not exceed the lowest by more
than 27 percent. However, large differences existed from month
to month in the pattern of fresh fruit sales. In every income
area store group the sales value of fresh fruits in the month
of largest movement was more than double that in the month
of smallest sales.
The monthly purchase pattern for fresh and processed com-
modities in the downtown store group is illustrated in Figure 2.
This chart indicates that approximately the same amount of
money was spent for processed citrus and competing products
during the months when fresh fruit sales were large as during
those when they were small.
The analysis indicates a possibility that fresh fruits may
compete with other food and non-food commodities and services
to as large an extent as with processed fruit products. Although
data were not obtained on consumer purchases of other goods
and services, the small monthly differences in processed prod-
ucts sales as contrasted to larger variations in fresh fruits
support this view. As compared to total expenditures or even
those for food alone, the cost of fresh fruits or processed fruit
purchases is generally small so far as the average family is
concerned. A decision to buy or not to buy such products is
usually not of signal importance except in the case of consumers
with very low incomes.
Statistical tests were made to determine whether differences
in the level of month to month sales values and quantities
were significant or whether variations as wide as those recorded
could have been due to chance.9 These tests indicated that con-
"These analyses were based on the assumption that, for a given store
group, observed total weekly sales (for all stores in that group) were a
linear combination of a general effect, a monthly effect and a random effect.
The null hypothesis that monthly effect was zero was tested. The technique
of the analysis of variance was used in this test. This hypothesis was tested
for each of the four major income area store groups and for eight processed
products. Each monthly value or quantity measurement was composed of








Citrus and Competing Products Sales 17

Cent, per













"l Pod Jice Eqi olent
g.- 3 tW ll Processed Orange PJoducte p c per o iu fe vt All Pro d Grapefruit Products d i l e
t Price- i 18 1 100 V P uant ity 14
Ouanty- 12


6 1,000



than10 Single-Strength Grapefruit Juice
1,500 1T6
0 0
114
1,00 12





12
mh sAll Singee-Strewgth Non-Cths Jwicee




Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice 1,500
22 10
0- 20 1,000






ase Moent d ah Month se

Fig. 3.-Weekly volume sold and price per pound of various products in terms of single-
strength juice equivalent, downtown store group, four monthly periods, 1950-51.


sumers in the low income area and downtown stores had a pur-
chase pattern less stable than that of middle and high income
area purchasers. In most store groups fewer changes were noted
in the month-to-month purchases of processed orange products
than was true of processed grapefruit products. Weekly average
prices and quantities of these and other processed products in
the downtown store group are illustrated in the Figure 3. They
are shown in terms of single-strength juice equivalents.


four weekly figures which were used to determine the extent of variation
within months. In order to test whether the level of sales in February was
different from that, say, in August or whether differences existed from
month to month in the overall sales pattern, weeks within months were
assumed to be repeated measurements for each month and thus a measure
of error.







18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

In no income area store group did the purchase pattern of
processed products appear to be inversely related to that of
fresh products. For instance, the level of purchases of grape-
fruit juice was seasonally high in February, the month of largest
fresh grapefruit sales. Consumers with higher incomes ap-
parently maintained the same general purchase pattern for
most processed products throughout the year, but lower in-
come consumers, because of differences in tastes or for other
reasons, had a more variable purchase pattern.
As indicated in Table 6, the monthly volume of sales of all
the processed products studied in the middle income area group
could have varied as widely as they did because of chance
fluctuations. In the high income area store class, the aggre-
gate of all processed grapefruit products (in single-strength
juice equivalent terms) was the only group for which signifi-
cant monthly differences in levels of sales were noted. The
variation in the month-to-month quantities sold of the other
processed commodities in that income area group could have
been due to chance fluctuations alone.
The aggregate of all processed orange products (in single-
strength juice equivalent terms) was the only group in the low
income area class where differences in the monthly level of sales
could have been accounted for by chance factors. Products in
this classification in the downtown group included the aggre-
gate of all processed orange products (in single-strength juice
equivalent terms), single-strength orange juice, frozen concen-
trated orange juice, and all single-strength non-citrus juices.

WEEKLY VARIATION IN SALES VALUE
In most months less variation was recorded in the value of
weekly sales of processed citrus and non-citrus products than
of fresh fruit in the various income area store groups (Table
16, Appendix).10 During three of the monthly periods in all
except the low income area store group less deviation was ob-
served in the weekly sales value of processed products sales

10 The measure of dispersion used to determine this was the coefficient
of variation. The standard deviation is an absolute measure of dispersion
and the coefficient of variation is a relative one. The coefficient of varia-
tion is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, or average. The
higher the value of the standard deviation, the greater is the amount of
dispersion. The relative amount of dispersion between any two sets of data
can be determined by comparing their coefficients of variation; the larger
the value of the coefficient of variation, the greater is the relative variation
or dispersion in that group of data.













TABLE 6.-DIFFERENCES IN THE MONTH-TO-MONTH VOLUME OF SALES OF CERTAIN PROCESSED PRODUCTS, FOUR INCOME AREA GROUPS OF
RETAIL GROCERY STORES, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, AUGUST AND OCTOBER 1950 AND FEBRUARY AND MAY 1951.t

Product
| All Orange All Grape-
Income Area | Products fruit Products Single- Single- Frozen
Store Group All (Single- (Single- Strength Strength Concen- Tomato All Single-
Processed Strength Strength Orange Grape- treated i Juice Strength
Products Juice Juice Juice fruit Orange Non-Citrus
Equivalents) Equivalents) Juice Juice Juices

Low income ............... Diff.** No diff. Diff.t** Diff. Diff.**f.iff.** Diff.* Diff.*

Middle income .......... No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff.

High income ...........- No diff. No diff. Diff.** No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff. No diff.

Downtown .............. Diff.* No diff. Diff.** No diff. Diff** No diff. Diff.** No diff.

Significant only at the 5 percent level; not significant at the 1 percent level.
** Significant at both the 5 percent and 1 percent levels.
t The null hypothesis tested was that no difference existed in the monthly volume of sales of each product in the four months for which data were collected, i.e., that
such differences as there were could have been due to chance. The analysis of variance was the statistical technique used.









20 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


than in those of fresh fruits. Conversely, in all four major

income area store groups weekly sales of fresh fruits fluctuated

less than processed products during one month out of four. In

the low income area store group processed products sales value
varied less during two months and fresh fruits during two.




All Single-Strength
Pc.cnt Flesh Coanoes Fresh Grapefruit Non-Ctrus Juices


,,,,

0'-- February






Low Middle H gh Downtown Low M:ddle High Downtown Low Middle High Downtown



negle- Strenth Single-Strength Single-Strength
Orngq I Ie Gropcrult Juice Blended Juice
,00
S- May

75
SI -- February
50 ,

October
25-

2- August
0
Low Mddle High Downtown Low Middle High Downtown Low Middle High Downtown



Frozen Concentrated Grapefruit Secti;n Orongeode
Orange Ju :e
5 I- May

75 __ February


50 October


-- August


Low Middle High Downtown Low Middle High downtownn Low Middle High Downtown

Income Area Store Groups




Fig. 4--Proportion of the total quantity of sales of fresh oranges and
grapefruit made each month, four income area store groups, four monthly
periods, 1950-51.







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 21

This evidence indicated that the variation in sales of fresh
fruit in Meridian was larger than that of processed products
on a weekly as well as on an overall basis. Within each month,
when the weekly sales pattern of all products underwent rela-
tively small changes the weekly fluctuations in processed prod-
ucts sales were generally much less than that in fresh products.

MONTHLY SALES PATTERNS
Fresh Fruits.-The quantity of fresh fruit sold was largest in
February and least in August (Figure 4). In all store groups
the volume of sales of oranges in February was about three
times that of August. October and May volume in most store
groups was about equal and was more than double that of
August. The volume of grapefruit sales in February-the peak
month-was four to five times that of August.
Processed Products.-More relative differences between store
groups were apparent in the pattern of sales of processed prod-
ucts than in that of fresh fruits. Although the month-to-month
level of sales varied less than that of fresh fruits, there ap-
peared to be more differences among store groups in the propor-
tion of the total sales moved each month. In general, fewer
month-to-month fluctuations were observed in the sales pattern
of non-citrus single-strength juices than in that of citrus juices.
Minor products sales showed more variations from one store
group to another than were observed for major processed com-
modities.
COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS
DEMAND FOR CITRUS PRODUCTS
No close or consistent relationship was found between prices
paid and the quantities purchased of most commodities in
various income area groups or individual stores. For instance,
only 41 percent of the variability in weekly quantities sold
of single-strength orange juice in the high income area store
group was associated with price changes. In the low and middle
income area store groups the respective percentages were 53 and
37. Quality differentials, former seasonal purchase patterns,
the effect of store displays and promotions and other factors
for which no quantitative measurements were available probably
accounted for a large portion of the variation. Price-quantity
relationships similar to the above were derived for other com-
modities, both for store groups and for individual stores.







22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Part of the demand analysis involved statistical tests to as-
certain whether certain pairs of commodities were considered
to be substitutes for each other." Data for the following pairs
of commodities were subjected to these tests: (1) fresh oranges
and single-strength orange juice; (2) fresh oranges and frozen
concentrated orange juice; (3) single-strength orange juice and
frozen concentrated orange juice; (4) single-strength orange
juice and tomato juice; (5) fresh grapefruit and single-strength
grapefruit juice; and (6) single-strength orange juice and single-
strength grapefruit juice.



FRESH FRUIT SINGLE-STRENGTH SINGLE-STRENGTH
CITRUS JUICES NON-CITRUS JUICES
Cents per Cents per Cents per
Pound Pound Pound
15 15 30

25


10 \10 \'20
N --- -
15

5 5 10 -- Grape
--- Orange ---- Prune
... Apples -- Grapefruit
-- Grapefruit -- Blended 5 --- Pineapple
Orae Blended Apple
Oranges ----- Tangerine Tomato
0 0 0
A O F M A 0 F M A 0 F M

Month

Fig. 5.-Average monthly price per pound of various fresh fruits, single-
strength citrus juices and single-strength non-citrus juices, downtown store
group, four monthly periods, 1950-51.
"The method used was Schultz' "rough" test (Schultz, Henry. The
Theory and Measurement of Demand. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1938. pp. 571-572). Coefficients of variation of the ratios of prices
and quantities, respectively, were computed for various pairs of commodi-
ties. If more relative variation occurred in the quantity ratios, it was
an indication that the two products were competitive with each other. On
the other hand, if price ratios varied more than quantity ratios, it was
an indication that the two products were not substitutes.
Although analysis of coefficients of price and quantity ratios is often
considered to be an approximation and not a satisfactory test, other methods
of analyzing substitution relationships generally have not yielded mutually
consistent results. Changes in quality of both fresh and processed products,
gaps in availability and differences in the monthly purchase patterns of
certain products made the use of such other tests questionable. Satisfactory
data for use as indexes to remove the seasonal characteristic from processed
products sales data were not available.







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 23

Tests were made with the price and quantity data in the
downtown, low, middle and high income area store groups. Of
the 120 comparisons made (on an individual monthly and also
an overall 16-week basis), price ratios in only two cases showed
more relative variation than quantity ratios (Table 17, Appen-
dix). Thus, as a result of this analysis, it could generally be
inferred that the products studied were competitive.

MONTHLY AVERAGE PRICES
Average monthly prices per pound for most major commodity
groups in the downtown stores are illustrated in Figure 5.
(Weekly price and quantity data for several products, in terms
of single-strength juice equivalents, are shown in Figure 3.)
Although average prices in the downtown stores were generally
lower than those in other income area store groups, they showed
approximately the same relative changes over the period studied.
In addition, downtown store sales represented a larger portion
of the total in Meridian than did those in any other store group.

COMPETITION BETWEEN COMMODITY GROUPS
Fresh and Processed.-Fresh citrus and apples accounted for
half to two-thirds the sales value of all products studied in the
various income area store groups in Meridian. Half the value
of all sales in the high income area store group consisted of
fresh products, while the proportion was two-thirds in the low
income area and small stores groups. About 55 percent of all
sales in the middle income area and downtown store groups
were of fresh products.
Citrus Products.-Fresh citrus constituted from 46 to 64 per-
cent of the total sales value of fresh and processed citrus prod-
ucts in the various income area store groups studied in Meridian
(Table 7). Fresh citrus sales made up a larger part of the total
in the low income area class than in any other. Only in the
high income area store group did the value of processed citrus
products sales exceed that of fresh products (Fig. 1, front
cover).
Quantities sold and average weekly prices paid in single-
strength juice equivalent terms for most major orange products
in the downtown store group are shown in Figure 6. Espe-
cially noticeable are the large changes in quantity of fresh
fruit sold and the drop during October in price of single-strength
orange juice.








24 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 7.-COMPOSITION OF THE CONSUMERS' CITRUS DOLLAR IN FIVE
INCOME AREA STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY
PERIODS, 1950-51.

Income Area Store Group
Product Low Middle High Down-
Income Income Income town Small
Cents

Oranges .----.............................-- -- ..... 46.0 33.8 30.8 32.7 60.7
Grapefruit ...............-- ...............--12.2 14.3 12.5 18.2 1.4
Satsum as ....................---................ 0.6 0.8 0.4
Tangerines ----...----....... ---..... 5.3 3.1 2.5 2.6 0.8


All Fresh Citrus ...................... 64.1 52.0 45.8 53.9 62.9

Orange juice .........................----- .... 16.5 19.0 10.9 10.5 12.8
Grapefruit juice .......................-------- 9.7 10.0 8.9 9.9 9.4
Blended juice ....-- ---..................--- ..... 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 1.4
Tangerine juice ...---.................... ---0.1 0.2 0.5


All Single-Strength Juices ...... 26.5 29.4 20.9 22.4 23.6

Frozen concentrated orange
juice ....- ...........---..-----...... 3.5 11.6 27.6 13.4 11.9
Frozen concentrated grape-
fruit juice ......-............. 0.4 0.4 0.2
Frozen concentrated blended
juice .......----......................-- ---..... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4
Frozen-concentrated tangerine
juice ........ ----.........--.......---.


All Frozen Concentrated Citrus
Juices ........ .......... ....... 3.6 11.7 28.1 14.2 12.1

Hot-pack orange concentrate 0.6 3.9 2.1 1.2 0.1
Hot-pack grapefruit concen-
trate ------.......---------......* 0.2 0.1
Hot-pack tangerine concen-
trate .... ----....... ----.... .......... ...... ....


All Hot-Pack Citrus Concen-
trate -............--- --...........- ..... 0.6 3.9 2.3 1.3 0.1

Grapefruit sections ---......... ..... 0.4 1.5 1.5 2.3 0.2
Orange sections -........-........ 0.1
Blended sections ........... *" 0.3 0.3 0.4


All Citrus Sections ----........ 0.4 1.8 1.8 2.S 0.2

Orangeade ...........................----- 4.8 1.2 1.1 5.4 1.1

All citrus products .................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Less than 0.05 cent.








Citrus and Competing Products Sales 25



Pounds(Single-Strength Cents per pound
Juice Equivlent) QUANTITY (Single-Strength PRICE
Juice Equivalent)
3,500 22-

21

3,000 \ / 2A
/ / V \ Frozen Concentrated
19 Orange Juice
I I "\ /"
2,500 / 8




/ / \ -
175 \


1,500 / 14
1'3

Single-Strength \
1,000 \ Orange Juice V 12



"500 ''" 10 Single-Strength
I Orange Juice
Frozen Concentrated
Orange Juice
0 I . . 0
2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 4 1 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 4
August October February May August Optober February May
Month and Week Month and Week

Fig. 6.-Weekly quantities sold and average prices received (in terms
of equivalent single-strength juice) for major orange products, downtown
store group, four monthly periods, 1950-51.

Fresh Fruits.-Receipts from the sale of fresh citrus fruits
exceeded those of apples in every income area store group. The
proportion citrus constituted of all fresh fruit sales ranged
from 53 to 58 percent, being smallest in the low income area
store group and largest in the high income area group. In four
individual stores the value of apples purchased exceeded that
of fresh citrus.
Fresh Citrus.-Oranges made up 60 percent or more of the
total value of fresh citrus sales in every income area store group.
In only five individual stores did orange sales account for a
smaller proportion. Weekly average prices and total quantities
sold of fresh oranges in the downtown store group are illus-
trated in Figure 7. In October a definite inverse relationship
between prices and quantities was observable. However, dur-







26 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

ing the last two weeks of February and all of May prices re-
mained relatively stable but quantities varied considerably.
Sales of grapefruit were relatively largest in the downtown
stores, where they accounted for a third of the value of all
purchases of fresh citrus products. Grapefruit in 9 of the 20
stores accounted for 25 percent or more of all fresh citrus
volume. In one supermarket grapefruit had a higher sales
value than did oranges.


Pounds Cents per
Sold Pound
8,000 11

7,000 Price -10

6,000 --- 9

5,000 8

4,000 7

3,000 6
Quantity
2,000 I 5

1,000 4

0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
August October February May

Month and Week

Fig. 7.-Fresh oranges-weekly quantities sold and average prices received,
downtown store group, four monthly periods, 1950-51.

Tangerine and satsuma sales were relatively largest in the
low income area store group and smallest in the high income
area and downtown store groups. Satsumas were available
only in October and tangerines in February.
Processed Products.-When comparing all sales of processed
citrus and non-citrus products, it was noted that the relative
proportion of total expenditures made for single-strength juices
was less in the high income area store group than in the low
income area group (Table 8). Single-strength juices accounted
for over 80 percent of processed products sales in the low in-





TABLE 8.-PROPORTION OF TOTAL SALES VALUE OF PROCESSED CITRUS AND COMPETING PRODUCTS ACCOUNTED FOR BY SALES OF
VARIOUS GROUPS OF COMMODITIES, 20 RETAIL GROCERY STORES, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.
Commodity Group
o Ar Single- Single- Frozen
Income Area Strength Strength Concentrated Other Total
Store Group Citrus Non-Citrus Citrus Orangeade Products* Sales
and Store Juices Juices Juices
Number
Percent of Total
Low Income:
Store No. 1 ............. ...... 50.1 41.8 ... 6.3 1.8 100.0
Store No. 2 .......-----..... --41.7 47.7 7.6 3.0 100.0
Store No. 3 ....-.......----- 48.9 43.9 5.4 1.8 100.0
Store No. 4 ....--............ .. 42.9 47.0 .... 8.2 1.9 100.0
Store No. 5 .....----- ...---- .. 42.7 33.0 18.3 4.6 1.4 100.0
Store No. 6 --................. 24.5 37.8 21.7 10.4 5.6 100.0
Store No. 7 .............-..-.... 46.5 38.2 11.5 3.5 0.3 100.0
Store No. 8 -............. .... 23.4 44.9 9.1 18.8 3.8 100.0 )
Group Total ............................ 42.0 42.3 5.8 7.5 2.4 100.0
Middle Income:
Store No. 9 ..............--- ..-38.5 34.7 17.0 2.5 7.3 100.0
Store No. 10 .........-.....-- 35.5 34.5 17.9 1.2 10.9 100.0
Store No. 11 ........---- ..... 44.8 54.4 ...... 0.8 100.0
Group Total ........................... 38.0 37.2 15.2 1.6 _8.0 100.0
High Income:
Store No. 12 ............ ... 28.6 33.3 32.0 1.3 4.8 100.0
Store No. 13 .................... 22.1 31.6 38.5 1.5 6.3 100.0
Group Total .......................... 25.8 32.6 34.7 1.4 5.5 100.0
Downtown:
Store No. 14 --- -.......--. 23.1 42.4 18.7 9.4 6.4 100.0
Store No. 15 .--.....--------.. 40.5 38.1 11.4 5.0 5.0 100.0
Store No. 16 ---------------- 27.6 36.2 22.5 6.6 7.1 100.0
Store No. 17 .---------........ 28.8 35.8 24.9 1.8 8.7 100.0
Group Total ....... .... .. ...... 29.0 39.4 18.3 6.9 6.4 100.0
Small:
Store No. 18 ........-------- .. 24.7 27.7 46.6 .... 1.0 100.0
Store No. 19 --- -......--..... 64.3 35.1 0.6 .... .... 100.0
Store No. 20 ..----......--... 51.1 36.0 ..0.5 12.4 100.0
Group Total ........................... 43.3 31.7 22.4 0.1 2.5 100.0

Total 20 Stores ............... ... 32.3 38.8 17.5 5.6 5.8 100.0
Hot-pack orange concentrate, citrus sections, and frozen concentrated grape juice.








28 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

come area group. Two-thirds of all processed products sales in
the downtown group were single-strength juices; the propor-
tion in the middle income area and small store groups was three-
fourths.
The share of the value of all processed products sales consti-
tuted by frozen concentrated citrus juices nearly tripled from
the low to the middle income area group. It more than doubled
from the middle to the high income area class. Thirty-five
percent of the value of processed products sales in the high
income area group was contributed by frozen concentrated citrus
juices.
Single-Strength Juices.-Half the value of all purchases of
single-strength juices in the low and middle income area stores
for the four monthly periods surveyed was accounted for by
citrus juices (Table 9). Only slight variations were noted
around the 50 percent figure in any of the four months for
stores located in the low and middle income areas. In every
store class except the high income area group, citrus juice sales
were relatively largest in August and February. Nearly 60 per-
cent of all single-strength juice sales in the downtown and high
income area store groups were non-citrus juices.

TABLE 9.-PROPORTIONATE DOLLAR EXPENDITURE FOR SINGLE-STRENGTH
JUICES IN FOUR INCOME AREA STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI,
FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.

Income Area Store Group
Kind of Juice Low Middle I High Down-
Income Income i Income town
Percent of Total

Citrus:
Orange .......---- --..........--- 31.0 32.7 23.1 19.8
Grapefruit ........................... 18.3 17.2 18.8 18.7
Blended ..............................-- 0.3 0.4 2.2 2.8
Tangerine .............................. 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0
Total Citrus .................----... 49.9 50.5 44.2 42.3
Non-Citrus:
Apple .----..---.. ................. 4.3 4.5 5.9 7.5
Grape .....-------..... .-.. -- ..-- .. 9.6 11.4 9.4 10.7
Pineapple ..........-------------- 11.7 10.6 12.0 11.9
Prune .............. .------- 6.3 7.1 8.4 9.8
Tomato .....---.........--.- ------------ 18.2 15.9 20.1 17.8
Total Non-Citrus ............ 50.1 49.5 55.8 57.7

Total .......-- ...------ .....-------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0








Citrus and Competing Products Sales 29

Orange juice purchases, as a proportion of the value of all
single-strength fruit juices, made up a larger part of the total
in the middle and low income area groups. Grapefruit juice
accounted for a stable 17 to 19 percent of all single-strength
juice sales in the four major income area store groups.
In every store group more tomato juice was sold than any
other non-citrus juice. It was followed by pineapple, grape
and prune juices. Apple juice was the least important non-
citrus juice.
Monthly Purchase Pattern of Processed Products.-Monthly
purchase patterns in the low and high income area store classes
for the major groups of processed products studied are shown
in Table 18 (Appendix). No great degree of variation between
months was noted in the relative sales value of the various com-
modity groups.

TABLE 10.-SOURCE OF ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT SOLD IN FIVE INCOME
AREA STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, DURING FOUR MONTHLY
PERIODS, 1950-51.
Income Area Store Group
Sure Low Middle High Down-
Source Income Income Income town Small
Percent of Total Supply
Oranges

Florida ............... ..... 81.1 81.7 69.7 83.1 75.4
California ................ 8.7 12.7 13.4 11.4 7.0
Texas --....................... 2.7 .... .6 3.3 16.7
Louisiana ......... ..... .... 0.3 1.1 0.9
Unspecified ...........-. 7.5 5.3 15.2 1.3

Grapefruit

Florida .................. 57.9 57.9 40.3 67.2 61.2
Texas .-...-........... 34.3 41.3 59.5 31.2 14.0
Arizona .... ........ ... -.... -. 0.6
Unspecified ............ 7.8 0.8 0.2 1.0 24.8


SOURCE OF FRESH CITRUS

Oranges.-Florida was the source of 70 percent or more of the
fresh oranges sold in every store group studied (Table 10).
California oranges constituted from 9 to 13 percent of all oranges
sold, with the highest proportion in the high income area store
group. Texas and Louisiana oranges made up a negligible
amount of the entire quantity sold. Oranges from Florida were







30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

sold in two store groups during all four months studied and
in the other three groups during October, February and May.
No California orange sales were recorded in February and
May but from 90 to 100 percent of all oranges sold in each
store group in August were from California. The source of
oranges and grapefruit sold in the downtown store group during
each month of the study is given in Table 11.

TABLE 11.-SOURCE OF FRESH ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT SOLD IN DOWN-
TOWN STORE GROUP, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, AUGUST AND OCTOBER 1950
AND FEBRUARY AND MAY 1951.
Month
Source August I October I Februaryl May Total
Percent of Total
Oranges

Florida ..---...........--... 8.3 84.3 98.0 100.0 83.1
California .....-........ 91.7 .... .... .. 11.4
Texas ........ ................ 11.2 ... ... 3.3
Louisiana ........ .... 0.4 2.0 .... 0.9
Unspecified ............. .... 4.1 .... ... 1.3

Grapefruit

Florida .................... 87.3 44.1 62.1 100.0 67.2
Texas ...................--.. .. 55.9 35.7 31.2
Arizona ................... 12.7 ... .. 0.6
Unspecified ............. .... 2.2 .... 1.0


Florida oranges sold at prices averaging 0.5 to 2.3 cents a
pound lower than those from California. During the months
when both were available, oranges from California sold at
prices of 1.2 to 5.0 cents per pound more than Florida oranges.
Prices were generally lowest in the downtown and low income
area store groups. In practically every group the price during
each survey month was lower than the preceding price.
Grapefruit.-Some 60 percent or more of the grapefruit sold
in every income area store group except the high income area
class was from Florida; most of the remainder was from Texas.
Virtually no Arizona grapefruit was sold. Texas grapefruit
movement was relatively larger in October than in any other
month studied.
Prices for Florida grapefruit, when both Florida and Texas
fruit were available, averaged 2.9 to 5.6 cents a pound cheaper
than that from Texas. Grapefruit prices were lower in Feb-







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 31

ruary than any other month, having fallen from their peak in
August. May prices were generally higher than those in Feb-
ruary but lower than the level in October.

PINK AND WHITE GRAPEFRUIT
Relatively more pink than white grapefruit was sold in the
high than in the low income area store group (Table 12). Less
than half the volume of grapefruit sales in the low income area
group was pink but the proportion was more than two-thirds
in the high income area class. In the downtown stores-the
group which sold the largest amount of grapefruit and in which
grapefruit constituted a large proportion of the consumers'
citrus dollar-pink grapefruit sales made up only 38 percent
of the volume of all fresh grapefruit movement.

TABLE 12.-PROPORTION PINK GRAPEFRUIT OF ALL GRAPEFRUIT SALES,
FIVE INCOME AREA STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, AUGUST AND
OCTOBER 1950 AND FEBRUARY AND MAY 1951.
SMonth
Income Area August October Februaryi May Average
Store Group I
Percent
Low income .........-.- 0 56.6 54.1 27.4 I 48.3
Middle income .......... 0 78.2 67.5 37.7 52.5
High income ............ 0 84.8 66.3 73.8 67.7
Downtown.................. 0 55.9 35.7 23.3 37.8
Sm all ............................ .. .. .- 26.4 0 26.4


CAN SIZES
Single-Strength Orange Juice.-In every income area store
group more than half the quantity of canned single-strength
orange juice was sold in 46-ounce cans (Table 13.)
Single-Strength Grapefruit Juice.-Although more grapefruit
juice was moved in 46-ounce cans than in any other size, a
slightly smaller proportion of the total quantity of grapefruit
juice than of orange juice was sold in cans of this size.
Blended Orange and Grapefruit Juice.-The 18-ounce can was
the most popular size for blended orange and grapefruit juice in
the low, middle and high income area groups. However, more
than 60 percent of all sales in the downtown and small store
groups was in 46-ounce cans.








32 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 13.-RELATIVE QUANTITIES OF SINGLE-STRENGTH ORANGE, GRAPE-
FRUIT, AND BLENDED ORANGE AND GRAPEFRUIT JUICES SOLD IN VARIOUS
SIZED CONTAINERS, FIVE INCOME AREA STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN,
MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.

Size of Container
Store Group 46 oz. 18 oz. 12 oz. 6 oz.
Percent of Total Quantity Sold
Orange Juice

Low income ....... 54.2 39.8 2.5 3.4
Middle income ......... 62.4* 29.3 2.1 6.2
High income .........---...... 62.3 28.6 | -. 9.1
Downtown --... ---....... .. 68.6 27.8 1.3 2.3
Small stores .......-.. ... .. 88.1 ... 11.9

Grapefruit Juice

Low income ----.............. 48.8 48.1 3.1 4.7
Middle income ........... 59.0 35.1 .. 5.2
High income -.............. 57.0 41.0 2.0
Downtown ..--.----....... 63.3 33.8 I 0.7 2.2
Small stores ......------ -. 11.5 79.3 .. 9.2

Blended Orange and Grapefruit Juice

Low income -------............ 44.8 55.2
Middle income ......-... .... 100.0
High income .....-....--- 34.7 58.2 I 7.1
Downstown ....-............ 61.5 38.5 .
Small stores .-.......-...... 61.2 31.7 7.1

*Includes 9 percent of lotal in 32 oz. containers.

Price Relationships.-Prices per unit equivalent of weight of
grapefruit juice in various can sizes are illustrative of the price
relationships among can sizes for the other single-strength juice
data studied. Monthly weighted averages indicated lowest
prices for grapefruit juice in the downtown store group and
highest in the small store class (Table 14).

TABLE 14.-AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND OF CANNED SINGLE-STRENGTH
GRAPEFRUIT JUICE IN VARIOUS SIZES OF CANS, FIVE INCOME AREA STORE
GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.

Income Area Can Size
Store Group 46 oz. 18 oz. 12 oz. 6 oz. 534 oz. |Average

Low income .....---........ 11.3 12.9 .... 17.6 .... 12.4
Middle income .-..-...... 12.3 13.6 .. 20.6 .... 13.2
High income ... .....-- 12.5 13.8 .. 20.5 15.3 13.2
Downtown ..........--.... 10.8 12.7 18.7 17.8 16.0 11.8
Sm all ................. ....... -15.2 15.8 .... 22.8 .... 16.3







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 33

When comparing prices paid per unit equivalent in different
can sizes, the price in 18-ounce cans was generally 10 to 20 per-
cent more than that in 46-ounce cans. The price per pound of
single-strength grapefruit juice in 6-ounce cans was some 55 to
65 percent more than that in 46-ounce cans.

SWEETENED VS. UNSWEETENED GRAPEFRUIT JUICE
Unsweetened grapefruit juice was more popular than sweet-
ened grapefruit juice in every store group. More than half the
quantity of grapefruit juice sold in the middle income, high in-
come and downtown store groups was unsweetened (Table 15).
Nearly half the total sales in the low income area and small
store groups was unsweetened. The data indicate that Meridian
consumers with low incomes preferred sweetened grapefruit
juice to a larger extent than did those with higher incomes. On
the other hand, all groups probably bought more unsweetened
than sweetened juice.

TABLE 15.-PROPORTION OF TOTAL QUANTITY OF SINGLE-STRENGTH GRAPE-
FRUIT JUICE SOLD SWEETENED AND UNSWEETENED, FIVE INCOME AREA
STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS, 1950-51.

Income Area Sweetened I Unsweetened ] Unclassified
Store Group
Percent of Total Sales

Low income .........- 29.8 48.5 21.7
Middle income ........- 19.6 76.2 4.2
High income .........------ 8.1 82.2 9.7
Downtown ........-..------. 33.3 50.6 16.1
Small stores ............. 28.5 44.8 26.7


SINGLE-STRENGTH JUICE EQUIVALENT PRICES
Certain citrus products were converted to the equivalent of
single-strength juices in order to compare their relative prices.12
Many fresh oranges were doubtless used for making juice. Wa-
ter was added to frozen and hot-pack concentrates in order to
reconstitute them into juice on a single-strength basis before

"12 The conversion factors were those cited in the publication, Conversion
Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and Their
Products. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, May 1952.







34 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

they were consumed. A single-strength juice equivalent basis
thus provided the best common denominator for purposes of
comparing prices of different products.
Orange Products.-When prices in terms of single-strength
juice equivalents of orange products in the forms of fresh
oranges, canned single-strength orange juice and frozen concen-
trated orange juice were compared, canned single-strength
orange juice was the most economical form in which to consume
oranges. Only in the small store group was it generally cheaper
to buy fresh oranges.
Using the price of single-strength orange juice for each store
group as an index of 100, the data show the relative cost of
oranges in various forms:


Income Area Store Group
Form IDown-
Low i Middle High town Small
Income Income Income Stores I Stores

Canned single-strength
orange juice .......... 100 100 100 100 100
Fresh oranges ........... 121 120 120 120 90
Frozen concentrated
orange juice ....-...- 150 139 139 146 117


Orangeade, hot-pack concentrate and orange sections were not
included in this comparison, since satisfactory conversion factors
to single-strength juice equivalents were not available or because
of their relatively small volume of sales. Estimates of the
orange juice content of orangeade vary between 15 and 30 per-
cent. Were it converted to single-strength orange juice equiva-
lent with a conversion ratio of 20 to 25 percent, its cost per
single-strength juice pound equivalent would be more than that
of any other orange product.
Grapefruit Products.-Fresh grapefruit, in terms of canned
single-strength grapefruit juice equivalent, was more expensive
than canned single-strength grapefruit juice. Grapefruit sec-
tions, in most store groups, were priced at about the same level
as fresh grapefruit when considered in terms of single-strength
juice equivalents. The relative cost of various grapefruit prod-
ucts is shown below:







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 35


Income Area Store Group
Form Down-
Low I Middle High town Small
Income Income Income Stores Stores
Canned single-strength
grapefruit juice 100 i100 100 100 100
Fresh grapefruit ...... 177 | 170 175 155 123
Frozen concentrated
grapefruit juice ... 35 29 84 101 129
Grapefruit sections .... 158 165 171 158 128


STORE PURCHASE PATTERNS AND CONSUMER PREFERENCES
Analysis of the retail store data reported herein tends to sup-
port in considerable degree the findings of the consumer prefer-
ence survey conducted in Meridian during the spring of 1951.13
Although it was impossible to relate directly the data from the
consumers interviewed to the individual store or income area
store group in which they shopped, a comparison of consumer
preferences and store purchase patterns nevertheless showed a
remarkable degree of similarity.
The consumer preference survey indicated large seasonal
variations in the consumption of oranges as well as orangeade.
This was supported by the analysis of the retail store data. The
consumer preference survey also reported that a third of all
users of fresh grapefruit, frozen concentrated orange juice and
single-strength orange juice changed their consumption of these
products with the seasons but that only one-fourth of the users
of single-strength grapefruit juice reported such changes. Some-
what the same conclusions for fresh grapefruit and single-
strength grapefruit juice were made from the analysis of the
store data. However, relatively little change in the monthly
sales pattern of frozen concentrated orange juice and single-
strength orange juice was noted from the store study. Only in
the low income area store group did the sales pattern of these
two products vary significantly from month to month.
Both the consumer survey and the retail store study showed
that fresh fruit sales were higher in the winter than in other
seasons. The finding of the consumer preference study that
the use of single-strength orange juice and single-strength

"1Kimmel, D. C. Use of Citrus Products in Meridian, Mississippi,
Households, Spring of 19E1. Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 509, December 1952.







36 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

grapefruit juice was seasonally high in both summer and winter
but was slightly higher in the summer was not borne out by the
store sales study. The store sales and analysis showed August
consumption of these products slightly higher than that in Oc-
tober but February consumption, in most cases, was much
higher than that in August.
The store study bore out the conclusion of the consumer pref-
erence survey that orangeade was a summer beverage but not
that frozen concentrated orange juice was. Also, the store sales
records did not agree with the consumer preference finding that
single-strength grapefruit juice and frozen concentrated orange
juice were used in larger quantities when good quality fresh
fruits were not available. These processed products either had
sales patterns which were fairly consistent from month to month
or else were highest during the winter, the period when the
largest quantity and the best quality of fresh citrus fruit were
available.
A study of the store data indicated, as did the consumer pref-
erence survey, that relatively less single-strength orange juice
was used by high income consumers and that more fresh grape-
fruit and frozen concentrated orange juice were used by con-
sumers with high incomes. The store study finding did agree
with those of the household interview survey that consumers in
each income group made about the same relative level of pur-
cases of single-strength grapefruit juice but not those of orange-
ade. Sales of orangeade constituted a much larger proportion of
the consumers' citrus dollar in the low than in the high income
area stores.
In the consumer preference study it was brought out that
changing price relationships were given as reasons for substi-
tuting one product for another only 10 percent of the time.
Analysis of the store sales data did not yield substantial evi-
dence for altering this conclusion.







Citrus and Competing Products Sales 37





APPENDIX

STORE GROUP CHARACTERISTICS
Low Income Area Group.-Eight stores were included in the
low income area group. Four of these were units of locally
owned chains, three of the same chain. The other four were
independently owned. It was estimated 14 that most of the custo-
mers trading at this group of stores had incomes below $50 a
week, with the bulk of them falling in the range from $30 to
$35. Credit was extended at the four independent stores in the
group.
Middle Income Area Group.-The three stores in this group
were each independents. Credit was extended at two of the
stores in this income area group.
High Income Area Group.-The customers who shopped in
the two independently owned stores in this group were predomi-
antly business and professional people. Both of these stores
extended credit.
Downtown Store Group.-Two of the stores in this group were
independently owned and two were units of chains. All four
of the stores were relatively modern.
Small Store Group.-These stores were independently owned
and all did much of their business on credit. More than 100
such small neighborhood stores, each of which carried less than
a complete line of groceries, were located in Meridian. One of
the stores from which data were collected was located in an area
with high consumer incomes and the other two were in areas in
which consumer incomes were relatively low.

"1 By judgment based on interviews with store managers, observations of
neighborhood characteristics, etc.









TABLE 16.-VALUE OF AVERAGE WEEKLY SALES, DISPERSION,* AND COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION, FIVE INCOME AREA GROUPS
OF RETAIL GROCERY STORES, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, AUGUST AND OCTOBER 1950 AND FEBRUARY AND MAY 1951. o
00

Income Area Value of Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of
Store Group Weekly Sales I Variation**
and Month Fresh Processed Fresh Processed Fresh Processed
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent Percent

Low Income:
August ........... 177.74 199.44 26.76 7.03 I 15.06 3.52
October ........... 428.39 183.14 11.45 8.66 2.67 4.73
February .......... 621.47 222.58 68.75 19.37 11.06 8.70
May ................. 390.31 231.76 17.72 15.17 4.54 6.55

Middle Income:
August ........... 105.05 143.60 18.36 11.80 16.99 8.23
October ......... 181.30 150.97 24.96 18.01 13.76 11.93
February ........ 248.64 138.10 26.31 20.85 10.58 15.10
May --....--...--- 190.55 143.07 30.05 17.33 15.77 12.11

High Income:
August ........... 93.00 141.04 8.40 8.93 9.03 6.33
October ......... 127.09 123.51 16.44 20.51 12.94 16.61 C
February ........ 192.50 122.94 41.91 10.86 21.77 8.83
May .............. 90.98 124.98 15.58 19.15 17.12 15.32

Downtown:
August ....... 378.30 674.88 35.87 35.36 9.48 5.24
October ............ 944.43 633.24 122.80 69.34 13.00 10.95
February ....... 1,284.48 673.40 92.17 51.83 7.18 7.70
May .....--.........-- 665.33 661.15 12.70 30.70 19.09 4.64

Small:
August ......... 13.68 18.06 4.28 2.76 31.29 15.28
October ........ 46.76 15.21 9.30 2.88 19.89 18.93
February ....... 35.12 12.86 5.69 2.65 22.65 20.61
May .........-.... 31.69 15.58 4.95 2.60 15.62 16.69

As measured by standard deviations.
** The group of products with the least variation in the value of sales from week to week is shown in bold face type.





TABLE 17.-COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF PRICE AND QUANTITY RATIOS FOR VARIOUS PAIRS OF COMMODITIES, FOUR INCOME AREA STORE
GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, DURING FOUR MONTHLY PERIODS OF FOUR WEEKS EACH, 1950-51.
Quantity Data of Fresh Oranges and Grapefruit Deflated by Index of Shipments for Weeks Studied.

Pairs of Commodities
Fresh Oranges Fresh Oranges Single-Strength Single-Strength I Fresh Grapefruit Single-Strength
Income Area and Single- and Frozen Orange Juice and Orange Juice and Orange Juice and
Store Grouea Strength Concentrated Frozen Concentrated and Single-Strength Single-Strength
and Monthp Orange Juice Orange Juice Orange Juice Tomato Juice Grapefruit Juice Grapefruit Juice
Price Quantityl Price Quantityl Price | Quantity| Price Quantity| Price I Quantity( Price Quantity
Percent

Low Income:
August ........._. 2.9 19.2 7.1 16.2 8.3 34.1 0.8 13.3 13.1 37.0 2.5 16.9
October ............. 9.1 15.6 11.0 23.6 5.1 25.1 4.5 24.4 12.1 62.9 4.1 20.3
February ........... 13.7 27.8 8.5 33.1 0.0 8.0 3.0 16.6 4.9 12.5 3.4 11.3
May ................. 3.1 26.0 0.0 26.1 2.9 34.8 2.2 20.6 3.8 55.4 1.1 18.9
Total ................ 6.0 41.1 11.2 87.0 7.5 56.6 12.2 20.7 3.9 81.7 5.8 29.8

Middle Income:
August ................ 11.4 47.2 8.2 33.0 3.2 9.2 3.4 22.0 0.0 48.7 1.2 7.2
October -......... 9.8 41.5 6.5 39.9 2.2 23.4 1.4 16.3 5.1 53.2 1.5 14.7
February ......... 4.5 33.9 5.3 33.9 2.6 3.8 2.7 29.7 11.3 31.1 2.0 21.1
May .........---- -... 4.4 44.1 3.9 39.0 3.8 28.8 1.8 24.9 4.6 33.4 4.6 35.9
Total .......... 11.0 44.1 7.7 43.3 9.7 26.7 11.4 29.1 3.9 75.2 7.5 26.7

High Income:
August ....-- ....- .. 4.1 27.2 7.3 22.5 0.0 38.1 3.3 29.6 9.5 27.6 2.1 44.5
October --.....----- 5.7 36.9 0.0 32.7 4.3 25.2 5.3 11.1 9.3 33.3 3.5 27.9
February ......... 7.0 26.0 8.3 16.4 7.9 22.1 7.0 9.6 6.5 27.7 4.5 38.5
May ..................... 1.5 42.9 4.3 36.7 2.7 22.2 1.9 13.6 1.1 37.6 2.6 37.2
Total ...- ...-....-- 9.5 57.6 10.7 43.3 9.7 36.4 12.5 18.3 15.0 58.1 9.6 27.0

Downtown:
August ....-------- 1.6 15.3 1.9 19.0 2.6 15.3 0.8 7.7 9.3 41.2 1.0 5.2
October ........ 13.1 18.8 15.2 22.8 9.3 6.0 9.1 31.9 9.0 68.7 5.1 21.8
February --...------ 4.4 24.3 8.5 28.0 4.1 23.4 1.7 26.2 5.6 14.5 1.7 24.2
May ................. 2.2 30.7 10.4 24.0 1.1 25.0 3.0 7.0 9.8 26.9 2.6 16.4
Total ........... 7.7 55.8 11.4 42.9 10.5 25.8 12.3 6.8 10.9 72.0 9.5 27.3







40 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 18.-PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE FOR VARIOUS GROUPS OF PRO-
CESSED CITRUS AND NON-CITRUS PRODUCTS, Low AND HIGH INCOME
STORE GROUPS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, AUGUST AND OCTOBER 1950 AND
FEBRUARY AND MAY 1951.
Low Income Area Store Group

Product Group _Percent of Total
_Aug. Oct. Feb. May Average

All single-strength citrus
juices ................ --........--........ 40.0 41.1 44.1 42.6 42.0
All single-strength non-citrus
juices ........................---.. .... 41.0 43.4 38.9 45.8 42.3
All frozen concentrate citrus
juices ............-- --........... ..... 5.7 2.4 8.1 6.1 5.8
All hot-pack concentrate citrus
juices ............-............-....... --- 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.9
All citrus sections .---....- ............. 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.7
Orangeade .... --...............-............... 12.2 10.2 5.6 3.3 7.5
Frozen concentrated grape
juice . .-------.....-................... 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.8


Total .....-....---.. ...-..... .-----.. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

High Income Area Store Group

Product Group Percent of Total
Aug. Oct. I Feb. I May Average

All single-strength citrus
juices ....... ............................ 28.4 25.4 23.1 26.1 25.8
All single-strength non-citrus
juices ..............-- ........-. .----- ....-- 29.8 27.3 37.3 36.2 32.6
All frozen concentrate citrus
juices .................-- ..........-...... 36.4 39.2 I 33.2 30.1 34.7
All hot-pack concentrate citrus
juices ... ---...................- ........ .... 4.6 3.5 3.4 2.8
All citrus sections ..................... 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.2
Orangeade ...---- -------- --.......-. 2.5 1.3 0.3 1.2 1.4
Frozen concentrated grape
juice .. --................-..---.. .. 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5


Total ....- --------................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 00.0 100.0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i





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