• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Introduction
 Historical trends
 Degree and pattern of foreign...
 Application of market agreements...
 Summary
 Bibliography






Group Title: Economics information report - Food and Resource Economics Department - 68
Title: Florida winter cucumbers
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027311/00001
 Material Information
Title: Florida winter cucumbers is a federal market program needed?
Series Title: Economic information report
Physical Description: iii, 33 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Wall, G. Bryan ( George Bryan )
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla.
Publication Date: 1977
 Subjects
Subject: Cucumbers -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 33.
Statement of Responsibility: G. Bryan Wall.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027311
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 - 000412476
oclc - 03614139
notis - ACF9424

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Table of Contents
        Page i
    List of Tables
        Page ii
    List of Figures
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Historical trends
        Page 1
        Production districts, yields, trends and returns
            Page 1
            Page 2
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
        Price and market patterns
            Page 12
        Summary
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
    Degree and pattern of foreign competition
        Page 17
        Trends
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
        Spatial dimensions of markets
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
    Application of market agreements and orders
        Page 26
        Purpose and definitions
            Page 26
            Page 27
        Price impacts of marketing orders
            Page 28
        Incidence
            Page 29
            Page 30
        Summary
            Page 31
    Summary
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Bibliography
        Page 33
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







G. Bryan Wall


Economic Information


Report 68


Florida Winter


Cucumbers--Is


Federal Market Program Needed?


igiV ~
7' 1/


Food and Resource Economics Department
College of Agriculture
Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611


,March 1977


all.












ABSTRACT


This study is basically a historical descriptive analysis of the
Florida fresh market cucumber industry. Also included in this study
is a brief analysis of the effect that imported cucumbers has had on
Florida's spatial market distribution and a brief discussion of Federal
Market Orders and/or Agreements. This study may be used by Florida
growers in deciding whether to actively pursue a federal marketing
program for fresh cucumbers.

Key words: Cucumbers, costs and returns, Market Orders and Agreements.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . .. . ii

LIST OF FIGURES . . .. . . . . iii

INTRODUCTION. .. . . . ... ..... 1.

HISTORICAL TRENDS . . . .. .. . . 1

Production Districts, Yields, Trends and Returns .. ..... 1
Price and Market Patterns . . . . ... 12
Summary . . . . ...... ... 13

DEGREE AND PATTERN OF FOREIGN COMPETITION . . ... 17

Trends . . . . .. . 17
Spatial Dimensions of Markets . . ........ 21
Summary . . . .. .. . 26

APPLICATION OF MARKET AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS . .. . 26

Purpose and Definitions. .. . . . .. 26
Price Impacts of Marketing Orders . . ..... 28
Incidence . . . . . . 29
Summary. . . . . . ... 31

SUMMARY . . . . .. . . . 31

EBIBLIOGRAPHY. ...... . . . . 33














LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Florida cucumber acreage harvested by selected
counties for crop years 1969-70 through 1974-75 . 4

2 Florida cucumber acreage and production by areas
1974-75 crop year . . .. .. 5

3A Acreage, production and value-for Florida cucum-
ber production. .. .. .. .. . ... 6

3B Costs and returns per acre for cucumbers grown.
in Immnokalee-Lee County area .. .. . 7-

4 Comparison of 1965-66 through 1969-70 and 1970-71
through 1974-75 crop year averages.- .. ... .. 8

5 Comparisons of five year averages for production
costs of Florida growers for years 1966-70 and
1970-74 (Immokalee and Lee County areas) ... . 11

6' Florida production sold by months (1000 bushels). 14

7 Average non-deflated value per bushel for'fresh
Florida c.icli;bei s . ... . .. . 14

8 Florida, Mexico and United States total recorded
movement including Mex:ican imports in bushels,
October 18 through May 29 . . .. ... 19

9 Cucumbers, fresh, supply and utilization in
United States ...... . . . 20

10 Percent of market unloads for select cities for
Florida and Mexico for 10 year span, 1964-65
througLh I9 4-75 ......... . .. 22

11 Vegetable quantity regulated under federal marketing
order programs, production, and percentage regulated
by area, 1973-74 marketing year . ......30

12 Provisions of vegetable marketing agreements and
orders in the U.S. as of May 1, 1974. . '30















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Acreage planted in cucumbers in Florida, 1974-75 . 3

2 Acreage deflated value per bushel for Florida winter
cucumbers, by months and crop years 1970-71 through
1974-75 . . . . . . 9

3 Sales of Florida winter cucumbers by months for
crop years 1970-71 through 1974-75 . . .... 15

4 Average value per bushel for fresh market sales,
monthly, for Florida cucumbers, crop years 1970-71
through 1974-75. . . . . .. 16

5 Percent of total United States movement of cucum-
bers for 1966 through 1976 . . .. ... 18

6 Destination points where costs are equal for cu-
cumbers shipped from Brownsville, Texas and
Pompano, Florida .to major U.S. cities. . ... 25













FLORIDA WINTER CUCUMBER INDUSTRY--
PRELIMINARY CASE FOR FEDERAL MARKET PROGRAM

G. Bryan Wall


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to supply the cucumber industry.in the
state of Florida with accurate and up-to-date information regarding the
production and market distribution of fresh cucumbers. The fresh cucumber
market can perhaps be best characterized as fluid. In one sense the mar-
ket reacts to both foreign and domestic influences but at the same time
climatic and locational advantages are such to ensure at least historically,
a prominent market share for Florida cucumber production. The problem
facing Florida growers is simply one of how best to take advantage of this
market This is a question that is unanswerable without accurate and
timely data.
The approach of this paper is mainly descriptive. Historical trends
in production, yield and price variability will be discussed as will sea-
sonal and annual changes in market patterns. The effect of foreign com-
petition into the winter cucumber market will be covered. The significance
of a recently completed demand analysis of winter cucumbers and its impor-
tance to the question of a possible market agreement for cucumber production
will be discussed.

HISTORICAL TRENDS

Production Districts, Yields, Trends and Returns

There were 14,600 acres of cucumbers harvested in Florida during the
1974-75 winter season. Of this total 64 percent came from the five coun-


G. BRYAN WALL is assistant professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department.













FLORIDA WINTER CUCUMBER INDUSTRY--
PRELIMINARY CASE FOR FEDERAL MARKET PROGRAM

G. Bryan Wall


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to supply the cucumber industry.in the
state of Florida with accurate and up-to-date information regarding the
production and market distribution of fresh cucumbers. The fresh cucumber
market can perhaps be best characterized as fluid. In one sense the mar-
ket reacts to both foreign and domestic influences but at the same time
climatic and locational advantages are such to ensure at least historically,
a prominent market share for Florida cucumber production. The problem
facing Florida growers is simply one of how best to take advantage of this
market This is a question that is unanswerable without accurate and
timely data.
The approach of this paper is mainly descriptive. Historical trends
in production, yield and price variability will be discussed as will sea-
sonal and annual changes in market patterns. The effect of foreign com-
petition into the winter cucumber market will be covered. The significance
of a recently completed demand analysis of winter cucumbers and its impor-
tance to the question of a possible market agreement for cucumber production
will be discussed.

HISTORICAL TRENDS

Production Districts, Yields, Trends and Returns

There were 14,600 acres of cucumbers harvested in Florida during the
1974-75 winter season. Of this total 64 percent came from the five coun-


G. BRYAN WALL is assistant professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department.













FLORIDA WINTER CUCUMBER INDUSTRY--
PRELIMINARY CASE FOR FEDERAL MARKET PROGRAM

G. Bryan Wall


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to supply the cucumber industry.in the
state of Florida with accurate and up-to-date information regarding the
production and market distribution of fresh cucumbers. The fresh cucumber
market can perhaps be best characterized as fluid. In one sense the mar-
ket reacts to both foreign and domestic influences but at the same time
climatic and locational advantages are such to ensure at least historically,
a prominent market share for Florida cucumber production. The problem
facing Florida growers is simply one of how best to take advantage of this
market This is a question that is unanswerable without accurate and
timely data.
The approach of this paper is mainly descriptive. Historical trends
in production, yield and price variability will be discussed as will sea-
sonal and annual changes in market patterns. The effect of foreign com-
petition into the winter cucumber market will be covered. The significance
of a recently completed demand analysis of winter cucumbers and its impor-
tance to the question of a possible market agreement for cucumber production
will be discussed.

HISTORICAL TRENDS

Production Districts, Yields, Trends and Returns

There were 14,600 acres of cucumbers harvested in Florida during the
1974-75 winter season. Of this total 64 percent came from the five coun-


G. BRYAN WALL is assistant professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department.









ties of Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Lee, and Palm Beach. Collier county
alone accounted for 23 percent of the total acresplanted. Production
areas are shown in Figure 1, while tabulated figures for the last six
crop years can be found in Tables 1 and 2. From Table 1 it can be seen
that while the total acres harvested has declined from the 1969-70 high,
the five previously mentioned counties have increased their percentage
share of the acres planted.
In terms of yield per acre, total production, and the dollar value
per bushel several distinct trends are also visible. Yield per acre has
increased from 228 bushels per acre in 1966-67 to 276 bushels per acre in
1974-75, although this increase was not affected in smooth increments.
Total production has declined somewhat from the figures posted for the
1966-67 crop year to the 1974-75 crop year although the non-deflated
value per bushel has increased. The per bushel value for 1974-75 season
of $4.57 represents a decrease of 30 per bushel from the previous year
(Table 3A).
While the number of growers and acreage planted, which are tabulated
in Table 3B, represent only a small portion of total Florida production,
the cost and return figures shown are considered as accurately representing
the industry as a whole. In terms of product cost and returns per bushel
the historical trend is shown in Table 3B. The net return per bushel has
ranged from a low of $2.286 for the 1969-70 season to a high of $1.022
for the 1968-69 season. Of the twelve seasons shown, seven exhibit pos-
itve returns and five showed negative ones. The twelve year average
return.was $ -.1377 per bushel.
The five year yield average from the 1970-71 through 1974-75 crop
years was 241 bushels per acre. The five year average for the last half
of the 1960's was 224 bushels per acre (Table 3A). An across the board
comparison of the production values for the two time periods is presented
in Table 4. In terms of non-deflated prices the value per bushel increased
from $3.48 to $4.20 but in deflated terms (1967 = 100) the change was from
a five year average of $3.35 to the five-year average of $2.98. In per-
centage terms the non-deflated price increase represents a 21 percent in-
crease while the price index for prices received by farmers for fresh mar-
ket vegetables increased some 90 percent from 1965 to 1975. Simply stated
this means that the grower has lost considerable ground to inflation on a
per unit basis. Figure 2 is a graph of the deflated per bushel value of













































Over 2000


1000 to 2000


500 to 1000


Less than 500


TO MONROE COUNTY

J, ts '


Figure l.--Acreage planted in cucumbers in Florida, 1974-1975


i~o c' @


ii
I











Table 1.--Florida cucumber acreage harvested by selected counties for
crop years 1969-70 through 1974-75

YEARS
Counties 1969-70 1.7C-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
- - --Acres- - - -
Alachit 590 -00 01000 900 900
Collier 2750 2900 2850 2700 2450 3400
Dade 5E 430 a a a
Desoto 730 410 580 820 780 600
Hardee 1450 1410 1720 2450 1850 1800
Hendry 1200 1240 1060 900. 900 1500
Hillsborough 90 120 570 320 280 150
Lee 1300 1040 1230 1420 1580 1500
Palm Beach 1800 2120 1550 1020 1070 1150
Seminole 600 710 550 350 320 200
Sumter 600 550 720 600 500 900
Volusia 500 350 310 260 180 150
Other 2710 2220. 2510 2560 2190 2350

Total 15000 14100 14500 14400 13000 14600


included in other.


Source: Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.









Table 2.--Florida cucumber acreage and production by areas 1974-75
crop year


Areas Yield/acre Production
Planted Harvested (bushels) (1000 bush.)

West a a a a
North 1500 1480 317 469
N. Central 1150 1130 310 350
W. Central 3900 3865 325 1256
South West ... 7000 6700 208 1394
South East 1450 1425 390 556

Total 15000 14600 1550 4025

alncluded in North.


Source: Federal Crop & Livestock Reporting Service.










Table 3A.--Acreage, production & value


Acreage Yield Prod. value Total Deflated
Ye- (bush./ (1000 (Valu value value/
Year Planted Harvested acre) bush.) (bu.) (1000 bu.) bushel

1974-75 15,000 14,600 276 4025 4.57 18,404 2.80
1973-74 14,100 13,000 231 3006 4.87 14,643 3.14
1972-73 15,300 14,400 245 3523 3.74 13,184 2.46
1971-72 15,900 14,500 251 3638 3.98 14,477 3.15
1970-71 16,800 14,100 204 2827 3.84 11,038 3.36
1969-70 17,200 15,000 .188 3033 3.63. .10,249 3.15
1968-69 18,300 .17,000 178 4125 4.02 12,207 3.86
1967-68 17,50 16,600 248 3421 3.14 12,962 2.-99
1966-67 16,400 15,000 228 4229 3.56 12,187 3.49


Source: Federal Crop & Livestock Reporting Service.


for Florida cucumber production








Table 38.--Costs and'returns per acres for cucumbers grown in Inmmokalee-Lee County area

#A s Per acre values Per bushel values Range per acre
SeasonAcres Growing Harv & mkt Yield Crop Crop Net Net return
Season Growers ted costs costs (bush) cost sales return $


5.600

5.230

4.404

5.156

3.960

4.478

5.465 '

3.919

3.931

3.037

3.664


.397

.305

-1.436

.757

-.528

-2.286

1.022

.388

.064

-.191

.160


1974-75

1973-74

1972-73

1971-72

1970-71

1969-70

1968-69

1967-68

1966-67

1965-66

1964-65

1963-64


-303 to 1265

-388 to 1022

-809.10 to 96.77

-393 to 1133

-433 to 261

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.


1304

641

1090

805

1325

3301

2041

1668

2031

1182

538

1388


Source: Brooke, various issues.


740.47

602.84

464.30

495.69

423.62

411. 3

399.45

400.81

378.08

371.88

406.97

335.86


846.30

717.01

575.21

621.70

501.01

217.82

389.96

542.02

407.02

493.19

413.07

406.09


305

268

178

254

206

93

177

267

203

268

234

234


5.203

4.925

5.840

4.399

4.488

6.764

4.443

3.531

3.867

3.228

3.504

3.170


2.866 -.304


N.A.




8



Table 4.--Comparison of 1965-66 through 1969-70 and 1970-71 through
1974-75 crop year averages

Acreage Yield Prod. alue Total
Years (bu./ (1000 ue value
Planted Harvested acre) bu.) (bu.) ($1000)


1965-66--1969-70

1970-71--1974-75


17,280

15,420


15,780

14,120


224

241


3527

3404


3.48

4.20


12,119

14,349


Source: Federal Crop & Livestock Reporting Service.


- --















1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75


8 -


Oct.
Oct.


, __-. a


Nov. Dec.


Figure 2.--Average deflated value per
1970-71 through 1974-75


Jan.


_ e


Feb.


Mar.


Apr.


May


0

d d
c e
e





June


bushel for Florida winter cucumbers by month, crop :;-,


6 -


4L.


b
a









Florida winter cucumbers.
While Table 3A shows change in the deflated value per bushel Table
3B shows the change in crop costs and sales over a slightly longer time
period. One means of avoiding an economic loss resulting from the de-
crease in per bushel value is if production costs decline. Per bushel
crop costs have increased from a low of $3.17 during the 1963-64 season
to $5.20 for the 1974-75 season. Likewise crop sales have increased
from $2.87 per bushel to $5.60 per bushel over the same time period.
Also for the same time period the net return has varied between a low
of $ -2.27 per bushel to a high of $ .76.per bushel.
The information to-be gleaned from these two tables is that the
south Florida cucumber industry has not experienced good financial
health, industry wide, over the time period shown.
Since cucumber growers have been faced with a declining real dollar
value for their produce, the use of technology to increase the yield per
acre and to reduce production cost per unit is one means of maintaining
an accounting profit. In percentage terms the yield increase is only
some 8 percent on the average; over all producers. A comparison of
operating cost changes over two five year spans, 1966-70 and 1970-74, is
shown in Table 5. This table suggests that although the industry averages
of net returns are not encouraging, the ranges for individual growers
illustrates the possibilityof substantial returns. In general the Palm
Beach-Broward areas seem to offer lower ranges for net returns to growers.
The Immokalee-Lee area yields the larger per acre returns and also the
larger yield per acre. As these areas generally market their produce
simultaneously, these comparisons are felt to be appropriate.
An interesting production development is the practice of planting
cucumbers in plastic mulched beds from which a primary crop has been
harvested. The second cropping practice eliminates the need to form
new beds while at the same time makes maximum use of any fertilizer
residual left in the beds. The effect of this practice is simply to
reduce the total overhead cost per unit. The use of such practices,
more prevalent in the eastern than southwestern cucumber areas, has been
to increase yields while decreasing production costs by reducing the costs
of land preparation, mulching, and fertilizer.









Table 5. Comparisons of five year averages for production costs of
Florida growers for years 1966-70 and 1970-74 (Immokolee
and Lee areas)


No. growers


'ears


1970-74
1966-70


1974-75 Range


Growing Harv.& mkt.
costs costs


(acre)
503.76
392.29


(acre)
504.37
409.40


per acre for Florida
Immokolee-Lee


Net
return


(acre)
-62.68
6.73


Yield


(bu./acre)
200
202


Cucumber growers
Palm Beach-Broward


Yield (bushels)
Total growing costs
Total harv. & mkt. costs
Total crop cbsts
Crop sales
".-t return


Source: Brooke, 1972, .1976.


From
141
$612.75
370.12
998.85
705.00
-302.75


To
S450
$849.11
1192.50
1903.36
3150.00
1265.19


From
91
$405.30
250.33
850.32
546.00
-384.44


To
365
$831.76
1197.02
1696.35
2193.83
$943.41


I








Price and Market Patterns


The market for fresh Florida cucumbers is a split one. The most
active trading usually takes place November 1 through December 15 and
April 20 through June 1. Harvest usually begins on or about September
20 and is completed by the end of the second quarter of the calendar
year. During the month of November, Florida provides nearly three
quarters of the total United States market and as much as ninety per-
cent of the total U.S. market in mid April. The two peak harvesting
seasons for Florida usually range from'eight to eleven weeks in duration,
for both the-fall and spring markets.. Very light marketing are available
in January and.February and the first .half of March. Most of the recorded
shipments moving Qut-of-state during,January through March are for off-
shore and truck imports which are repacked and sold in mixed lots through
regular Florida market outlets.
Cucumbers are highly susceptible to cold weather and wind damage and
for this reason the season progresses up the peninsula of the state as
warm weather advances. The southwest, southeast, and west central producing
areas market at successively later dates. The later spring market, be-
ginning June 1, for Florida cucumbers is mainly for north, west, and north
central producing areas. South Carolina and Georgia begin to offer region-
al competition for Florida producers beginning around June 1st. These
states are followed by North Carolina and Virginia as the summer months
begin. What this means for Florida cucumber producers is that their
national market is restricted to late fall and early spring when south
Florida is the only major U.S. producer. The mid-winter market is con-
trolled by off-shore producers, while the late spring and early summer
markets must be shared by producing states in the coastal plains. This
implies that north Florida production regions must be more regional in
market orientation due to increased U.S. production. The national market
is "reserved" for south Florida production due to the time aspect of the
market. South Florida does not usually produce in mid-winter because of
the risk of weather damage and similarly north Florida does not produce
in mid-summer due to the adverse summer climate. The mid-summer market
is serviced by New Jersey, New York, and the mid-western states.
Foreign competition comes mainly from Mexico, although there are
some imports from the Bahamas. Mexican produce is the principal late






fall and early spring competition for Florida cucumbers. In mid-winter
when Florida production declines, Mexican and Bahamian cucumbers are
commonly imported for packing and market distribution from south Florida
packing houses and thus account for recorded out-of-state movements of
cucumbers from Florida.
Table 6 is a tabulation of the Florida winter production by months
for the last five crop years. Of interest is the increasing quantity
marketed in March and April of each year. While overall Florida winter
production has increased by some 40 percent, the March and April markets
have posted increases of roughly 400 and 200 percent, respectively. By
the same token, production in June has declined 70 percent over'the same
period. Inlshort, what appears to be taking place is that Florida cucum-
bers are entering the market earlier, perhaps to take advantage of higher
early spring prices. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of Florida
winter production for the last five crop years while Figure 4 represents
monthly prices paid to growers for the same production period. Table 7
presents the same information in tabular form and shows that the average
non-deflated prices have increased over the five year production period,
The ,months of March and April. which have shown the largest production
increases, posted declines .in non-deflated prices received, but the per-
centage price declines are less than the percentage increases in produc-
tivity.

Summary

On the average, Florida cucumber producers have not fared well from
a price standpoint. Although production has increased the prices paid
to growers have declined in'real terms. Industry averages indicate that
.the increase in productivity has not been large enough to offset the
decline in real prices. The wide ranges that are present among individ-
ual growers for yields, production costs, and net returns, indicate that
it is still possible for select individuals to realize an adequate return
on investment but on an industry wide basis this does not appear to be
the case. Recent technological changes, specifically double cropping on
land previously mulched for tomatoes and peppers, have offered some pros-
pects for increased or stable yields with decreased production costs.









Table 6.--Florida production sold by months (1000 bushels)

Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Total

1974-75 444 852 425 110 19 217 827 1023 108 4025
1973-74 169 664 307 35 13 163 521 951 163 3006
1972-73 354 867 408 90 54 35 454 1015 246 3523
1971-72 321 756 498 31 42 548 1259 183 3638
1970-71 344 738 142 25 13 223 1006 369 2873

% Change 29 15 199 340 46 416 270 1 -70 40


Table 7.--Average non-deflated value per bushel for fresh Florida cucumbers

Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Average

1974-75 4.55 3.20 6.85 6..50 9.55 8.50 5.30 3.25 3.95 4.57
1973-74 5.30 3.35 5.40 5.30 6.65 5.40 7.45 4.25 4.25 4.87
1972-73 2.80 2.60 3.00 6.60 6.40 5.00 3.75 5.40 3.74
1971-72 3.10 3.60 3.40 3.80 6.95 5.90 3.80 3.50 3.98
1970-71 2.70 2.90 4.70 4.20 3.85 8.95 6.80 4.20 3.70 3.84

% Change 68 9 27 54 148 -1 -22 -23 6 19

Sources: Florida Crop & Livestock Reporting Service, Veg. Summary 1975.












a 1970-71
1250 b 1971-72
c 1972-73
d 1973-74
e 1974-75

1000




750

-d

500




250 V

Sa d
F 11b d "
-
Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.


Figure 3.--Sales of Florida winter cucumbers by months for crop years 1970-71
thousands of bushels


S a b




Apr. Hay June


through 1974-75 in











10?0-71
1971-72
:972-73
1973-74
1974-75


.I

IC1 I


Oct.


C


Ir

i F


Dec.


Jan.


re


Mar.


d


Apr.


Figu --e 4--;..-.rane value per bushel fA,, fresh market sales, .:Bthly, for
crop years 1970-71 through 197-1-75


$/bushel
10.00



8.00


4.



.0


i
'i
i


May


June


c~--~ua~)~u4m~urwaulI~IU~~~-IYI~^


j. Q


Florida :;..-*H r..,








The split market for Florida cucumbers offers some advantage if it
is possible to market cucumbers in mid-winter (January through March) in
order to take advantage of high seasonal prices. There is some indication
that this is happening during the months of March and April, but the sus-
ceptibility of cucumbers to weather damage implies an increased risk factor.
One means of enticing growers to attempt to meet this mid-winter market is
the development of new strains which are more weather tolerant. As of yet,
such technological progress has not been possible and the full development
of the mid-winter season is not possible.


DEGREE AND PATTERN OF FOREIGN COMPETITION


Trends

The foreign competition for Florida fresh market cucumbers comes
mainly from Mexico. The Bahamas and Canada offer some competition, in
addition to Mexico, in a few select markets. In 1966 Florida supplied
66 percent of the total U.S. movement of cucumbers while Mexico supplied
22 percent. In the ten year period since then Mexico's share of the
market has increased to roughly 30 percent while Florida's position has
decreased to 30 percent. This has taken place in spite of an increase
in the U.S. per capital consumption of fresh cucumbers. Figure 5 and
Table 8 represent the market share trend while Table 9 shows the rela-
tive changes in U.S. production and imports in addition to per capital
consumption.
The reader is reminded that the yearly season has several intra-
seasonal peaks. During late Fall, November and December, and early
spring, April and May, Florida produces the major share of the U.S.
market in spite of Mexican competition, but in mid-winter, January
through March, Mexico is the principle supplier for U.S. markets.
Domestic competition for spring and fall cucumber production comes
mainly from the coastal plains, or Atlantic seaboard states, whose pro-
duce enters the market beginning in May and June and continues as a major
source of supply through the month of November. The summer market is
divided among a variety of producing regions including Canada, Michigan,
and the New England states. California produces a substantial quantity
i:tat is largely consumed intrastate. In the past ten years, Mexican








The split market for Florida cucumbers offers some advantage if it
is possible to market cucumbers in mid-winter (January through March) in
order to take advantage of high seasonal prices. There is some indication
that this is happening during the months of March and April, but the sus-
ceptibility of cucumbers to weather damage implies an increased risk factor.
One means of enticing growers to attempt to meet this mid-winter market is
the development of new strains which are more weather tolerant. As of yet,
such technological progress has not been possible and the full development
of the mid-winter season is not possible.


DEGREE AND PATTERN OF FOREIGN COMPETITION


Trends

The foreign competition for Florida fresh market cucumbers comes
mainly from Mexico. The Bahamas and Canada offer some competition, in
addition to Mexico, in a few select markets. In 1966 Florida supplied
66 percent of the total U.S. movement of cucumbers while Mexico supplied
22 percent. In the ten year period since then Mexico's share of the
market has increased to roughly 30 percent while Florida's position has
decreased to 30 percent. This has taken place in spite of an increase
in the U.S. per capital consumption of fresh cucumbers. Figure 5 and
Table 8 represent the market share trend while Table 9 shows the rela-
tive changes in U.S. production and imports in addition to per capital
consumption.
The reader is reminded that the yearly season has several intra-
seasonal peaks. During late Fall, November and December, and early
spring, April and May, Florida produces the major share of the U.S.
market in spite of Mexican competition, but in mid-winter, January
through March, Mexico is the principle supplier for U.S. markets.
Domestic competition for spring and fall cucumber production comes
mainly from the coastal plains, or Atlantic seaboard states, whose pro-
duce enters the market beginning in May and June and continues as a major
source of supply through the month of November. The summer market is
divided among a variety of producing regions including Canada, Michigan,
and the New England states. California produces a substantial quantity
i:tat is largely consumed intrastate. In the past ten years, Mexican






%

100


/

/

~


t a a a a a I I


1966 16 16 16 17 17 17 1


1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
67 68 69 70 71 72

Figure 5.--Percent of total U.S. movement of cucumbers

Source: Federal State Market News Service, 1975-76.


1972 1973
73 74

1966-1976


1974-
75


1975
76


-- Florida
--- Mexico


80 1-








Table 8.--Winter cucumber movement in United States


Source of production Percent of total

Florida Mexico United States Florida Mexico
- -(1000 bushels)- - -
1975-776 4061 3404 13321 30 26
1974-75 3645 2052 6598 55 31
1973-74 2916 3289 7139 41 46
1972-73 3130 3244 7296 42 44
1971-72 3231 2988 7201 45 41
1970-71 2442 3446 6748 36 51
1969-70 2784 2344 6025 46 39
1968-69 3009 2054 5771 52 36
1967-68 4003 1059 5009 80 21
1966-57 3757 1312 5898 64 22


Source: Federal-State Market News Service,


1975-76, pp. 30.








Table 9.--Cucumbers, fresh, supply & utilization in United States

Total Civilian Per cap Retail
Year Prod. Import
supply dis. consump. price
-------(1000,000 lbs) ----------- (Ibs.) (C/per lb.)
1975a 556.4 131.8 688.2 678.2 3.2 39.8
1974 528.3 182.2 710.5 699.8 3.3 31.9
1973 472.0 177.6 649.6 637.7 3.1 32.2
1972 482.4 169.5 651.9 642.2 3.1 28.9
1971 486.6 157.4 644.0 634.2 3.1 28.5
1970 504.8 143.3 648.1 645.6 3.2 27.8
1969 482.2 134.8 617.0 614.0 3.1 27.6
1968 503.4 77.2 580.6 577.4 2.9 27.2
1967 529.0 86.5 615.5 611.2 3.1 23.7.
1966 501.8 71.4 573.2 569.7 3.0 24.8
1965 504.2 75.8 600.0 596.5 3.1 22.1

aEstimate.


Source: ERS, p. 89.









produce has sharply reduced Florida's spatial pattern of the winter market.
For the calendar years 1964 and 1965 Florida provided 12 percent of the
fresh market cucumbers to San Francisco, California as part of a nation-
wide marketing system. Mexico supplied an equal amount to the same mar-
ket. During the two calendar years 1974-75, Florida's average fresh
market share dropped to zero while Mexico's increased to 22 percent.
Table 10 illustrates the changes in market shares between Mexico
and California for the 10 year period mentioned. Nationwide Florida's
percent share has decreased by an average of 5.7 percent while Mexico's
has increased to 14.7 percent. While Florida's market share has been
eroding in all sections the degree of erosion is the least in the eastern
markets. Florida has managed to increase its market percentage by 5.3
percent in the east through the 10 year span but Mexico has increased
its market share by 10.4 percent. During the two calendar years 1964
and 1965 Mexico marketed less than one percent of the total volume in
all twelve of the eastern cities.listed, but the two year average has
risen to 10 and 12 percent for New York and Pittsburgh, respectively.
Florida's smallest actual decline was in the twelve mid-western cities
while its largest decline was in the twelve southern cities, its closest
market. Mexico's share of .the Miami, Florida winter market has increased
from zero to 15 percent for the previously mentioned time span.

Spatial Dimensions of Markets


The decline in spatial dimensions of the Florida market represents
an even starker picture when one recalls that per capital consumption of
fresh market cucumbers has been increasing. The ability of Florida
growers to prevent further erosion of their fresh cucumber market would
appear to be linked to their ability to control the supply of Mexican
cucumbers. This is currently done through a system of import fees and
cuties, which are seasonally variable. The removal of the import charges
'n Mexican cucumbers would effectively lower the price of Mexican produce.
The theory of markets holds that the boundary between two markets is a
function of production and transportation costs. Taking the present
market boundaries between Florida and Mexican producers, any decrease in
t2xican import charges would serve to decrease their transportation costs
and thus further enhance their market position at Florida's expense.











Table 10.--Percent of market unloads for select cities for Florida and
Mexico for 10 year span, 1964-65 through 1974-75

Regions Florida Mexico
and 1974-75 1964-65 Change 1974-75 1964-65 Change
cities Aver. % Aver. % Aver. % Aver. %

Eastern
Albany, N.Y. 51 42 9 8 0 8
Baltimore, Md. 43 38 5 7 0 7
Boston, Mass. 38 32 6 19 0 19
Buffalo, N.Y. 39 50 -11 13 0 13
New York, N.Y. 44 39 5 10 0 10
Phila., Pa. 47 37 10 7 0 7
Pittsburgh, Pa. 41 36 5 12 0 12
Providence, R.I. 45 41 4 7 0 7
Washington, D.C. 46 39 7 9 0 9
Montreal, Q.. 18 24 -6 6 0 6,
Ottawa 26 11 15 11 0 11
Toronto 22 7 15 16 0 16
Average change (5.3) (10.4)

Midwestern
Chicago, Ill. 38 38 0 15 7 8
Cincinatti, OH 37 28 9 15 1 14
Cleveland, OH 26 30 -4 17 1 16
Detroit, Mich. 38 28 10 16 1 15
Indianapolis, Ind. 50 56 -6 5 0 5
Kansas City, Mo. 34 51 -17 20 6 14
Louisville, Ky. 47 46 1 10 0 10
Wilwaukee, Wisc. 53 36 17 9 0 9
Minneapolis, Minn. 27 51 -24 22 2 20
St. Louis, Mo. 38 41 -3 16 6 10
Wichita, Kan. 4 17 *
Winnipeg, Man. 12 10 2 23 0 23
Average change (-1.3) (13.1)

Southern
Atlanta, Ga. 43 49 -6 13 0 13
Birmingham, Ala. 71 46 25 5 2 3
Columbia, S.C. 63 51 8 0 0 0
Dallas, Texas 6 24 -18 25 8 17
Ft. Worth, Texas 2 29 -27 34 6 28
Houston, Texas 26 29 -3 20 14 6


Continued










T-l'e 10.--Percent of market unloads for select cities for Florida and
Mexico for 10 year span, 1964-65 through 1974-75 (continued)

It 'ions Florida M'exicoG
Snd 1974-75 1964-65 1974-75 1964-65
c ;ies Aver. % Aver. % Cange Aver. % Aver. % Change

h' phis, Tenn. 42 47 -5 21 3 18
Mii.mi, Florida 49 61 -12 15 0 15
Narhville, Tenn. 26 49 -23 7 0 7
Ne, Orleans, La. 28 28 0 17 3 14
OI,:ahoma City, OK 21 0 *
Sn Antonio, TX 0 10 -10 16 14 2
A:. rage change (-6.5) (11.2)

Western
De. ver, Col. 5 14 -9 30 15 15
Lo:; Angeles, Cal. 1 9 -8 25 15 10
Portland, Oregon 6 7 -1 29 10 9
Sail Lake City, UT 0 12 -12 34 12 22
San Francisco, CA 0 12 -12 33 22 11
So;. tle, Wash. 5 6 -1 27 15 12
Va. over, B.C. 4 1 3 26 2 24
Av: -age change (-5.7) (14.7)

Avc: -age Change (-1.5) (+12)

Source: U.S.D.A. 1976, 1966










The degree to which Florida's market share depends on this import
fee and the effect that the imposition of further import controls singu-
larly or. in connection with a Florida market agreement and/or order can
be seen in Figure 6. Figure 6 r-ep reents the various equi-cost boundaries
between Florida and Mexican winter cucumbers. It is not a perfectly accu-
rate representation however due to data collection problems but it is repre-
sentative of the effects of changes in import duties.
The development of the boLundaries in Figur. 6 is dependent on trans-
portation costs from the State Farmers Market in Pompano, Florida and
truck rates supplied by the Texas i'o-To,:c Transrprti-tion Broker Association
in Pharr, Texas; To the extent that most of the Mexican cucumbers enter
the U.S. through Nogales, Arizona, the use of BrP.cnsyille, Texas as an
entry point is misleading, but.the'inability to acquire truck brokerage
rates from Nogales necessitated the use of the Bro-.,,'sville rates. The
truck rates are somewhat outdated also, being 1975 for the Texas figures
and 1973 for the Florida rates. The costs of production and marketing
for both Florida and Mexican cucumbers are taken from USDA publications
[Simmons, 1976, p. 19].
The three lines AA,' BB, and CC, in Figure 6 reflect equal costs for
cucumber transport from Pompano, Florida and Drownsville, Texas. Line
AA reflects simply the cost of refrigerated transport. Areas west of AA
are reached more cheaply from Brownsville, while areas east of line AA
are reached more cheaply from Pompano. Line BB reflects the total costs
of production, marketing, transportation, export charges and tariffs.
Although the production costs per bushel are lower for Mexican cucumbers,
marketing costs are higher for Mexican than for Florida cucumbers. Add
to this, the export charges and tariffs imposed on Mexican produce and
Mexico's cost advantage area declines from the area west of line AA to
that west of line BB. The benefit of the U.S. tariff for Florida pro-
ducers can be seen by subtracting this charge from the total costs. This
is reflected in line CC which shows the equidistance costs for production
marketing and transportation.
The significance of Figure 6 is that without the tariff the Florida
winter cucumber industry would be eliminated by foreign imports. This
is consistent with De Boon's finding that without the tariff Florida
production would decline by some 33 percent and the market for Florida









































Figure 6.--Destination points where costs are equal for cucumbers shipped from Brownsville, Texas
and Pompano, Florida to U.S. cities









cucumbers would be restricted to 13 states whose market centers are
Washington, D.C. and New York City in addition to what is consumed intra-
state [De Boon, p. 87].

Summary


This discussion of the degree and pattern of foreign competition
has shown that the major single suppliers of U.S. fresh market cucumbers
are the south Florida producing areas and Mexico. The degree of Mexican
competition is determined in part by the variable duty rates applied to
imported cucumbers of Mexican origin. The effect of the duty fee.is to
raise the cost of Mexican cucumbers in U.S. markets. Figure 7 illustrates
the beneficial effect that this fee has for Florida growers in restricting
the spatial dimensions of the Mexican market and consequently enlarging
Florida's market dimensions.
In short, Florida's growers have been confronted with vigorous
foreign competition in the national market. The degree to which this
competition influences the well being of florida growers is beyond the
scope of this descriptive study. Thr previous portion of this study
discussed the overall financial health of the industry and in'the ab-
sence of any empirical studies one can only vaguely discuss the rela-
tionship between the increased level of foreign competition and the
parallel decline in the industry's financial health.
A future study is planned that will investigate the effects of in-
dustry wide regulations dealing with pack and quality restrictions as
one means of creating a more orderly marketing scheme for south Florida
growers. The application of similar control measures to imported winter
cucumbers could very well result in a improved product of standard size
and quality while at the same time serving to stabilize Florida's share
of the late fall and early spring fresh cucumber market.

APPLICATION OF MARKET AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Purpose and Definitions


The rationale for the introduction of marketing agreements and/or
orders is to improve returns to growers through orderly marketing.









cucumbers would be restricted to 13 states whose market centers are
Washington, D.C. and New York City in addition to what is consumed intra-
state [De Boon, p. 87].

Summary


This discussion of the degree and pattern of foreign competition
has shown that the major single suppliers of U.S. fresh market cucumbers
are the south Florida producing areas and Mexico. The degree of Mexican
competition is determined in part by the variable duty rates applied to
imported cucumbers of Mexican origin. The effect of the duty fee.is to
raise the cost of Mexican cucumbers in U.S. markets. Figure 7 illustrates
the beneficial effect that this fee has for Florida growers in restricting
the spatial dimensions of the Mexican market and consequently enlarging
Florida's market dimensions.
In short, Florida's growers have been confronted with vigorous
foreign competition in the national market. The degree to which this
competition influences the well being of florida growers is beyond the
scope of this descriptive study. Thr previous portion of this study
discussed the overall financial health of the industry and in'the ab-
sence of any empirical studies one can only vaguely discuss the rela-
tionship between the increased level of foreign competition and the
parallel decline in the industry's financial health.
A future study is planned that will investigate the effects of in-
dustry wide regulations dealing with pack and quality restrictions as
one means of creating a more orderly marketing scheme for south Florida
growers. The application of similar control measures to imported winter
cucumbers could very well result in a improved product of standard size
and quality while at the same time serving to stabilize Florida's share
of the late fall and early spring fresh cucumber market.

APPLICATION OF MARKET AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Purpose and Definitions


The rationale for the introduction of marketing agreements and/or
orders is to improve returns to growers through orderly marketing.










Marketing agreements and orders are simply programs through which growers
and handlers work collectively to solve problems common to each group which
the group members are unable to handle on an individual basis.
Marketing agreements and orders are usually spoken of synonymously.
This does not mean that one cannot exist without the other; it is simply
rare that one is established without the other. In general terms, a mar-
ket agreement applies to handlers and a market order to growers. The two
are issued simultaneously whenever handlers of 50 percent or more of the
commodity in question sign the agreement. A marketing order can be issued
with or without handler approval and when issued is binding on all handlers
in the industry. A marketing agreement which is issued without an accom-
panying market order-is binding only on those handlers who sign it.
Market orders can legally manipulate the market through a number of
means'involving quantity and/or quality restrictions. The regulation of
quality is.generally through the use of grade and size limitations: These
actions help to keep inferior grades from depressing the entire market.
By restricting inferior grades or sizes during times of large supply it
is possible to mollify the price decrease which would otherwise result
from the expanded production, given that all other factors which affect
price remain unchanged.
Quantity regulation can take one of three forms. The first is designed
to control short-term rate of flow in order to even out the flow of pro-
duce to market. The effect is to avoid flooding the market one week and
starving it the next and thereby reduce price fluctuations. Also, if the
product is a storable one, market orders are empowered to allocate supplies
between primary and secondary markets, which also serve to regulate product
flows to the market on a long run rather than shdrt-term basis.
If the industry can determine the total demand for its product the
market order can institute programs which limit the quantity which handlers
maypurchase from or market for any individual grower. In effect this
program allocates a share of the total quantity to be marketed during the
year to individual growers.
Market orders may also provide for the standardization of cartons and
packages, conduct research and development programs, provide detailed mar-
ket information, require handlers to post their selling prices, and pro-
hibit practices which the order construes as constituting unfair trade
practices.









One major advantage of marketing orders is that whenever the order
moves to control the grade, size, quality or maturity of a .commodity, with
the exception of dates for processing, the same standards are applied to
imported commodities which are afforded the protection of a domestic mar-
ket order. A market order in one area of the U.S. is not, however, binding
on other domestic producing areas. This is to encourage regional competi-
tion for the domestic market between domestic producers.

Price Impact of Marketing Orders


Those marketing orders which contain quantity control-provisions are
generally considered to have the greatest potential for influencing prices
at all levels of the market.- In certain situations those provisions which
regulate the grade and size.of the commodity may also have a substantial
effect on price although such price enhancement is secondary to the stated
policy of the order and/or agreement. The quantity and size provisions of
the Florida tomato marketing order is one such example; a marketing order
for Florida cucumbers would be another.
Florida cucumbers are marketed from October through June with the
peak seasonal levels in October-November and April-May. During the mid-
winter months and until the coastal plains states produce reaches markets
in June, Florida's major competition is from Mexico with some additional
competition from the Bahamas. Any grade and size regulation that a Florida
based market order would adopt would apply to these imports with the effect
of restricting the total quantity of cucumbers on the fresh market and also
increasing the overall quality of the produce. Because of Florida's unique
position as a winter producer any quality control instituted would also act
as a quantity control provision.
The degree to which quality regulations would be price enhancing for
Florida cucumbers would depend in part on what unilateral actions were
taken by Mexican producers to protect their own product price. In the
case of tomatoes, Mexico has imposed more stringent requirements for
tomatoes exported to the U.S. and has imposed several shipping holidays
in an effort to restrict supply. Because of such actions, Florida quality
regulations have not resulted in any price enhancement, and in spite of
the self-imposed restrictions Mexican tomato imports have increased sub-
stantially from 420 million pounds in 1966-67 to 731 million pounds in










1975-76 [Federal State Market News Service, p. 59].
From the above it can be seen the market orders are not a panacea
for all producer problems. They do offer growers a method of more orderly
marketing which may or may not prove to be price enhancing. From Table
11 it can be seen that the vegetables orders covered 42.8 percent of the
supply within regulated areas. But of the total share of the U.S. market
only 13.4 percent of the U.S. supply was directly subject to regulation.
Table 12 shows the degree to which some vegetables in the U.S. are
controlled through market orders and the provisions of the separate orders.
One can see that Florida celery is under the largest number of pro-
grams.but the relatively small number of celery growersmakes it easy to
coordinate.industry wide marketing policy.


Incidence

One final word is perhaps necessary as to the future of such agree-
ments and orders. There appears to be a growing trend in the United States
to offer stiff resistance toward the regulation of industries which the
consumer sees as resulting in price supports. The President's address
before a Joint Session of Congress on October 8, 1974 stated, "Agricul-
tural Marketing Agreements and Orders and other Federal regulations are
being reviewed to eliminate or modify those responsible for inflated
prices." The premise for such agreements and orders is that stable
prices are beneficial to both consumers and producers, but these agree-
ments and orders also have the potential to be price enhancing. The
first point is debatable as to the benefit for consumers as studies
have shown [Oi, Massel, Turnovsky, Waugh] that price stabilization makes
the consumer worse off and producers better off when the basic sources
of instability are on the supply side. Consumers benefit from price
stabilization only if the instability is demand side oriented. Since
the development of a market agreement and/or market order requires a
public hearing, those advocating the agreement and/or order should be
prepared to defend their proposals from opponents who view the order
and agreement program as another attempt by producers to insulate them-
selves from the forces of free trade.
A recent USDA publication dealing with the question of price enhance-
ment through Federal Market Agreements and Orders concluded that most of











Table 11.--Vegetable quantity regulated under Federal marketing order
programs, production, and percentage regulated by area,
1973-74 marketing year

Quantitya Production Percentage
Comodi regulated regulated

Vegetables
Total regulated areas 3,594.0 8,404.0 42.8
Non-regulated areas 0.0 18,436.0
Total U.S. 3,594.0 24,840.0 13.4

Source: Farmer Cooperative Service, USDA, 1975,;'p. 35.
a0r subject to regulation if no'regulation in effect for 1973-74
season.






Table 12.--Provisions of vegetable marketing agreements and orders
in the U.S. as pf May 1, 1974

Area and Grade Size Pack & Flow to Prod. R & Advert.
commodity cont. market allt. D

South Texas Onions X X X X

Texas Valley Tomatoesa X X X X

Florida Tomatoes X X X X

Florida Celery X X X X X X X

South Texas Lettuce X X X X X

aOrder only.

Source: Agricultural Marketing Service, Program Aid No. 1095,
p. 12.










the orders regulating grade and size provisions "had no significant price
enhancing results." Any marketing order dealing with Florida winter cu-
cumbers .would be of the grade and size type as those orders which regulate
quantity are not generally applied to noncitrus fruits and vegetables
[Farmer Cooperative Service, p. 52]. This would seem to imply that any
proposed marketing program for Florida winter cucumbers could be suc-
cessfully presented as being beneficial to producers without being price
enhancing. The degree of benefit accruing to the producers and any pos-
sible effects on consumers is beyond the scope of this study.


Summary

Of the number of Federal Market Agreements and Ordersin existence
the type of agreement best suited for Florida winter cucumbers is one
which regulates the quality of the product. Such programs benefit the
producers by regulating market flows and the consumer by ensuring that
only produce of the highest quality reaches the market. The effect that
such a program would have on foreign producers would depend in part on
what unilateral programs the foreign producers might adopt. In general,
the introduction of programs designed to control quality are not seen as
being price enhancing and to the degree that this is true such programs
should be palatable to the consumers groups who see Federal market pro-
grams as an attempt to isolate select commodities from the forces of
free trade.

SUMMARY


The purpose of this study has been to present an overall picture of
the health of the Florida winter cucumber market. In addition, a brief
discussion of the operation of Federal Market Agreements and Orders has
been presented as one possible means of improving the health of the Flor-
ida fresh cucumber market.
The health of the fresh cucumber market has, on an industry wide
basis, not been good. Acreage planted has declined slightly and produc-
tion has increased slightlybut growing costs per acre have experienced
dramatic increases, almost doubling between the 1963-64 season and the
1974-75 season. Harvesting costs have also increased from $406 per acre










the orders regulating grade and size provisions "had no significant price
enhancing results." Any marketing order dealing with Florida winter cu-
cumbers .would be of the grade and size type as those orders which regulate
quantity are not generally applied to noncitrus fruits and vegetables
[Farmer Cooperative Service, p. 52]. This would seem to imply that any
proposed marketing program for Florida winter cucumbers could be suc-
cessfully presented as being beneficial to producers without being price
enhancing. The degree of benefit accruing to the producers and any pos-
sible effects on consumers is beyond the scope of this study.


Summary

Of the number of Federal Market Agreements and Ordersin existence
the type of agreement best suited for Florida winter cucumbers is one
which regulates the quality of the product. Such programs benefit the
producers by regulating market flows and the consumer by ensuring that
only produce of the highest quality reaches the market. The effect that
such a program would have on foreign producers would depend in part on
what unilateral programs the foreign producers might adopt. In general,
the introduction of programs designed to control quality are not seen as
being price enhancing and to the degree that this is true such programs
should be palatable to the consumers groups who see Federal market pro-
grams as an attempt to isolate select commodities from the forces of
free trade.

SUMMARY


The purpose of this study has been to present an overall picture of
the health of the Florida winter cucumber market. In addition, a brief
discussion of the operation of Federal Market Agreements and Orders has
been presented as one possible means of improving the health of the Flor-
ida fresh cucumber market.
The health of the fresh cucumber market has, on an industry wide
basis, not been good. Acreage planted has declined slightly and produc-
tion has increased slightlybut growing costs per acre have experienced
dramatic increases, almost doubling between the 1963-64 season and the
1974-75 season. Harvesting costs have also increased from $406 per acre










to $846 per acre during the same time span. For the twelve crop years
mentioned, five have been characterized by negative returns per bushel.
The spatial market for fresh Florida cucumbers has decreased dra-
matically also. Florida's share of total U.S. movement of fresh cucum-
bers has decreased from 60 percent to 30 percent since the 1966-67 crop
season. Florida has lost ground to foreign competition in each of the
four market regions, eastern, midwestern, southern, and western. The
largest actual decline has been in the southern region and while Florida
has increased its percentage of market unloads in the eastern region by
5.3 percent Mexico has increased their unload percentage by 10.4 percent.
'The mechanism that has proved most effective in preventing further
erosion of Florida's.winter cucumber market has been the import duty
placed on imported cucumbers, most specifically those of Mexican origin.
Without the protection offered by these duties the spatial distribution
of Florida's markets would be greatly reduced.
One means of improving Florida's market position while simultaneously
improving the quality of fresh market cucumbers would be a Federal Market
Order and/or Agreement. Such an agreement could standardize the product
Sand increase-quality industry wide. The implementation of such an agree-
ment would necessitate industry wide cooperation and also require detailed
information concerning the effects of the agreement on consumers as well
as producers, both foreign and domestic. It is hoped that a more orderly
marketing scheme would benefit both consumer and producer and it is to
answer such questions as these that a sequel study to this one be done to
determine the degree of incidence of such an order.









BIBLIOGFRAPHY


Brooke, D. L. 1976. Cost and Returns from Vegetable Crops in Florida,
Season 1975-75 with Comparisons. Food and Resource Economics
Department, I.F.A.S., University of Florida.
Brooke, D. L. 1972. Cost and Returns from Vegetable Crops in Florida,
Season 1970-71 with Comparisons. Food and Resource Economics
Department, I.F.A.S., University of Florida.
Castro, R. and R. C. Simmons. 1974. The Demand for Green Peppers,
Cucumbers, and Cantaloupes in the Winter Season. Economics
Research Report No. 27, Department of Economics, N.C. State
University, Raleigh, N.C.
De Boon, T. 1974. "Influence of Trade Barriers: The Florida and Mexico
Experience with Winter Cucumbers." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Florida.
Federal State Market News Service. 1975-76 Season. Marketing Florida
Vegetables.
Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1975. Vegetable Summary.
Massell, B. F. 1969. "Price Stabilization and Welfare'" Quarterly Journal
of Economics 83:254-298.
Massell, B. F. 1970. "Some Welfare Implications of International Price
Stabilization," Journal of Political Economy 78:404-417.
Oi, W. Y. 1961. "The Desirability of Price Instability Under Perfect
Competition," Econometric 29:58-64.
Turnovsky, S. J. 1973. "Production Flexability, Price Uncertainty and
the Behavior of the Competitive Firm," International Economic
Review 14:395-413.
USDA. 1966. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Unloads. Agricultural Marketing
Service.
USDA. 1975. Marketing Agreements and Orders for Fruits and Vegetables.
Agricultural Marketing Service.
USDA. 1975. Price Impacts of Federal Market Order Programs. Farmer
Cooperative Service, Special Report 12.
'ISDA. 1976. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Unloads. Agricultural Marketing
Service.
ISDA. 1976. U.S. Fresh Market Vegetable Statistics. Economic Research
Services, Statistical Bulletin No. 550.
I!augh, F. V. 1944. "Does the Consumer Benefit from Price Instability,"
Quarterly Journal of Economics 58:602-614,




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