• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Type of transportation
 Distribution of shipments
 Type of sale
 Type of first buyer
 Type of container
 Summary






Group Title: Mimeo report - Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Florida - 58-11
Title: Distribution of Florida tomatoes
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072001/00001
 Material Information
Title: Distribution of Florida tomatoes seasons 1951-'52 through 1953-'54
Series Title: Agricultural economics mimeo report Department of agricultural economics. Florida agricultural experiment stations
Physical Description: 36 p. : ; .. cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brooke, D.L
Smith, C.N
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1958
 Subjects
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by D.L. Brooke, and C.N. Smith.
Funding: Agricultural economics mimeo report ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072001
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 by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 67671247
clc - 000489569

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Acknowledgement
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Type of transportation
        Page 3
        Enroute service
            Page 4
    Distribution of shipments
        Page 5
        Areas and types of transportation
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Grades
            Page 7
            Page 8
        Grades and areas
            Page 9
            Page 10
        Sizes
            Page 11
            Page 12
        Grades and sizes
            Page 13
    Type of sale
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Type of sale and diversions
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
    Type of first buyer
        Page 23
        Buyers and grades
            Page 24
            Page 25
        Buyers and sizes
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
    Type of container
        Page 30
        Containers by grades
            Page 30
        Containers by buyers
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
    Summary
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
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





Agricultural Economics Mimeo Report 58-11


/


Seasons


1951-52 through 1953-54


Seasons
Fig. 1.--Tomatoes: Percent of Florida Volume Shipped by Rail and Truck,
Seasons 1950-51 through 1956-57.
by
Donald L. Brooke and Cecil N. Smith i! i
Associate Agricultural Economists 1

Department of Agricultural Economics
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Gainesville, Florida


June 1958


7 1M'040


01141F If







TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page',
Introduction .. .. .. .. . 1

Type of Transportation . . . ...... 3

Enroute service

Rail service
Truck service

Distribution of Shipments . . .. . 5
Areas and type of transportation
Grades
Grades and areas
Sizes
Grades and sizes

Type of Sale . . . . . . 13
Type of sale and diversions

Type of First Buyer ... .......... 23
Buyers and grades
Buyers and sizes

Type of Container ... .. ...... . .... 30
Containers by grades
Containers by buyers

Summary ...... ... .. . ..... 34


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers express their appreciation to the organizations supplying data

for this study which was conducted with funds supplied under the Agricultural Market-

ing Act(Title II, ES 235). They are also grateful to Messrs. A.H. Spurlock, D. D.

Badger, Charles Winton and H.H. Burnette for assistance in obtaining field data; to

Mrs. Robert Crist and Mrs. James Meyer for clerical assistance; and to the University

of Florida Statistical Laboratory for preparation of data for analysis.







TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page',
Introduction .. .. .. .. . 1

Type of Transportation . . . ...... 3

Enroute service

Rail service
Truck service

Distribution of Shipments . . .. . 5
Areas and type of transportation
Grades
Grades and areas
Sizes
Grades and sizes

Type of Sale . . . . . . 13
Type of sale and diversions

Type of First Buyer ... .......... 23
Buyers and grades
Buyers and sizes

Type of Container ... .. ...... . .... 30
Containers by grades
Containers by buyers

Summary ...... ... .. . ..... 34


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers express their appreciation to the organizations supplying data

for this study which was conducted with funds supplied under the Agricultural Market-

ing Act(Title II, ES 235). They are also grateful to Messrs. A.H. Spurlock, D. D.

Badger, Charles Winton and H.H. Burnette for assistance in obtaining field data; to

Mrs. Robert Crist and Mrs. James Meyer for clerical assistance; and to the University

of Florida Statistical Laboratory for preparation of data for analysis.








DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDA TOMATOES:
SEASONS
1951-52 THROUGH 1953-54

by

Donald L. Brooke and Cecil N. Smith1


Introduction

Tomatoes are Florida's most important vegetable crop in terms of value.

During the 1954-55 season they were valued at more than $57 million, or 31 percent

of the total for all vegetable crops produced in Florida. Eight seasons earlier, in

1946-47, tomatoes from Florida were valued at less than $18 million.2 Both increased

acreage and greater yields per acre contributed to the rapid physical growth of

Florida's tomato industry.

With the increased production of tomatoes in Florida, problems of marketing

became more acute. Firms were faced with the problem of how best to sell their pro-

duct: (1) F.O.B. the shipping point with the buyer assuming all of the risks of delivery;

(2) consigned to commission merchants in the terminal markets with the shipper assum-

ing all of the risks; or (3) various other methods including price arrival, joint account

and terminal auction selling. Which of these methods returned the largest amount to

growers was a debatable question. Its answer appears to depend upon the several


1Associate Agricultural Economist, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations,
Gainesville, Florida.
2USDA, AMS, Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Florida
Vegetable Crops, Volume XI, 1955, pp.71 and 100.
1









factors of supply, demand, marketing costs, size and grade of product. To attempt to

answer some of these questions was the purpose of a study initiated in 1954 with

financial assistance from Federal-Grant Research funds) of the United States Depart-

ment of Agriculture.

A complete list of firms licensed to engage in marketing tomatoes in Florida

was obtained from such sources as the Florida State Department of Agriculture, The

Redbook, The Bluebook, and a local commercial publication of Florida packinghouses.

These firms were stratified by volume of business in the 1952-53 season. Firms of

unknown volume were placed in a separate stratum. A random sample of 15 percent

of the firms in each stratum of known volume and 25 percent of the firms in the

unknown volume stratum was drawn. The final sample contained names of 34 firms

selling tomatoes. These were visited to check their continued existence and willing-

ness to cooperate in supplying data. Some firms operated only as brokers, some had

discontinued operations, others merged, some sent all records to offices outside the

state and others refused to cooperate. In the final analysis the sample contained

16 firms with various volumes of business. The sales of these firms from which data

were collected comprised 17.0 percent of the total volume of tomato sales in Florida

during the 1953-54 season, 16.6 percent in 1952-53 and 9.4 percent in the 1951-52

season.

Data were taken from sales invoices of these 16 firms marketing Florida

tomatoes. Information obtained included units sold, prices received, type of sale,

type of container, grade and size of product, date of sale, method of transportation,


1AMA, Title II (ES 235).









refrigeration instructions, marketing charges, packing costs, commission charges, type

of receiver and destination of shipment. Data for each sale were coded and all infor-

mation transferred to I.B.M. cards. Various types of tabulations were made with these

cards and tables of data were prepared for analytical purposes.

The first phase of the study to be completed, the results of which are presented

in this report, was concerned with distribution of Florida tomatoes by type of transportation

and geographic or market area by grade, size and type of container.


Type of Transportation

Florida tomatoes move to market by rail and by truck. Data from the Crop

Reporting Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture on carlot equivalents moved

by rail and truck from Florida indicated that trucks moved more than 50 percent of

the crop in each of the seasons studied (Fig. 1). Sampled sales invoices indicated a

heavier rail movement (Table 1). Both sets of data showed a decrease in rail and

corresponding increase in truck shipments during the period studied.

Some of the differences in the two sets of data are probably contained in the

factors used to convert truck shipments to carlot equivalents. During the period

covered by this study the Crop Reporting Service was using 400 crates as the equivalent

of a carlot.1 Since February 1, 1955, they have used 350 crates per car. With the

advent of increased weight allowances in recent months another change in the con-

version factor will be necessary. The sample data are based on an actual container

1A sample of sales data indicates 357 crates (60 Ib.) per carlot in 1953-54
and 368 crates in 1952-53 and 1951-52. Assuming this to be correct for the industry,
a conversion factor of 400 crates per carlot for truck shipments results in a decrease
of carlot equivalent movement by trucks of 11 percent in 1953-54 and 8 percent in
the two prior seasons.









count of rail and truck movement. It is also possible that sampled firms used rail

transportation to a greater degree than was true of the average of all firms shipping

tomatoes from Florida during the seasons studied.


TABLE 1 .--Tomatoes: Proportion of Production Shipped by Rail and Truck from Florida,
by Source of Data, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Percent of Shipments
Season
Rail Truck Total

USDAa
1953-54 37.3 62.7 100.0
1952-53 41.6 58.4 100.0
1951-52 42.8 57.2 100.0
Average 40.6 59.4 100.0

Sample
1953-54 47.9 52.1 100.0
1952-53 55.0 45.0 100.0
1951-52 70.9 29.1 100.0
Average 55.7 44.3 100.0


aUSDA, AMS, Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Florida
Vegetable Crops, Volume XII, 1956, p. 76.



Enroute service

Type of refrigeration and ventilation or heater service requested of railroads

by shippers was ascertainable on more than 80 percent of the rail shipments of tomatoes

on which information was collected. Such information was available for only slightly

more than one-third of the truck movement.









Rail service.-- Refrigeration and ventilation service or re-icing enroute

was requested on 90 percent of the rail shipments in the 1953-54 season and a slightly

smaller proportion in the two previous seasons (Table 2). Some type of heater service

was requested for 10 percent or more of the rail movement in each season. December

through February are the primary months of use of heater service for tomatoes moving

to market by rail. Even in these months refrigeration or ventilation to certain way

points may be requested with heaters to be lighted when outside temperatures reach

certain specified minimums and turned off when outside temperatures warrant.

The only variations noted in enroute rail service were that heater service

was used very little to destinations in the Southeast and Southwest. The Northeast,

Midwest, Canada and the West were the major destinations for which heater service

was requested during the winter months.

Truck service. --Of the truck shipments for which enroute service information

was available, nearly one-fourth moved without specified cooling service. The

remaining three-fourths were iced, fan cooled or refrigerated in the truck. Sales

invoices for truck shipments carried little written information for changes in service

with changing temperatures. These instructions are believed to have been given

verbally in most cases.


Distribution of Shipments

Areas and type of transportation

As might be expected, shipment data indicated that high proportion of total

movement to distant markets was by rail. More than 95 percent of the shipments to









Rail service.-- Refrigeration and ventilation service or re-icing enroute

was requested on 90 percent of the rail shipments in the 1953-54 season and a slightly

smaller proportion in the two previous seasons (Table 2). Some type of heater service

was requested for 10 percent or more of the rail movement in each season. December

through February are the primary months of use of heater service for tomatoes moving

to market by rail. Even in these months refrigeration or ventilation to certain way

points may be requested with heaters to be lighted when outside temperatures reach

certain specified minimums and turned off when outside temperatures warrant.

The only variations noted in enroute rail service were that heater service

was used very little to destinations in the Southeast and Southwest. The Northeast,

Midwest, Canada and the West were the major destinations for which heater service

was requested during the winter months.

Truck service. --Of the truck shipments for which enroute service information

was available, nearly one-fourth moved without specified cooling service. The

remaining three-fourths were iced, fan cooled or refrigerated in the truck. Sales

invoices for truck shipments carried little written information for changes in service

with changing temperatures. These instructions are believed to have been given

verbally in most cases.


Distribution of Shipments

Areas and type of transportation

As might be expected, shipment data indicated that high proportion of total

movement to distant markets was by rail. More than 95 percent of the shipments to









TABLE 2.--Tomatoes: Monthly Use of Refrigeration and Heater
ments from Florida to the Rest of the United States and Canada,
through 1953-54


Service for Rail Ship-
Seasons 1951-52


Type of Service
Month
Refrigeration or Heaters Total
Ventilation

Percent of Rail Shipments0


1953-54


November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Average

October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Average

October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Average


100.0
75.0
72.2
69.3
92.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.2

100.0
98.1
81.9
47.8
60.3
100.0
99.7
100.0
100.0
89.7

100.0
96.6
53.1
63.5
82.0
97.3
100.0
97.8
100.0
86.4


1952-53


1951-52


2 & 8
25.0
27.8
30.7
7.1


. ...
9.8



18.1
52.2
39.7
* ..
0.3


10.3

....
3.4
46.9
36.5
18.0
2.7

2.2

13.6


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


This
83 per-


'Percent of rail shipments on which type of service was specified.
represents approximately 81 percent in 1953-54, 89 percent in 1952-53 and
cent of the total rail movement sampled in the 1951-52 season.









Canada were by rail in each of the seasons studied (Table 3). From two-thirds to

more than three-fourths of the shipments to the Northeastern, Midwestern, and

Western market areas moved by rail. Rail volume increases with distance, but may

vary between markets at the same distance because of differences in arrival facilities,

etc.

Truck movement was heaviest to Southeastern and Southwestern markets. It

may again be noted that truck movement increased relative to rail shipments to all

areas during the period studied.

A tabulation of shipment data by states showed that truck movement was a

much smaller proportion of total shipments to states such as Massachusetts, New York,

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Maryland which have large populations

than to more rural states in the South, Midwest and West. Truck movement to heavily

populated areas appeared to be increasing each year.


Grades1

Between three-fifths and two-thirds of Florida's tomatoes were sold as U.S.

Combination grade (Table 4), one-fourth of the crop graded U.S. No. 2 and less

than 10 percent were U.S. No. 1's2 during the seasons under consideration. No. 3's


1Grade designations tabulated were those indicated on sales invoices of the
firms studied. They are the grades in which the tomatoes were sold by the firms and
may or may not reflect strict U.S. Standards since not more than 50 percent of the
Florida tomatoes were federally inspected prior to the advent of the tomato marketing
agreement.

This and all other references herein to U.S. No. 1 grade tomatoes are for
86 percent U.S. No. I's and better.









TABLE 3.--Tomatoes: Proportion of Volume Shipped from Florida by Type of Trans-
portation and Market Areas, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Type of Transportation
A rea ... ....
Rail Truck Total

Percent of Volume


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada
Average

Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada
Average

Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada
Average


66.8
74.4
13.6
4,3
65,8
97.1
47.9

79.3
72.3
14.8
4.1
56.3
99.3
55.0

89.2
93.6
19.8
36.5
73.6
98.0
70.9


1953-54








1952-53








1951-52


33.2
25.6
86.4
95.7
34.2
2.9
52.1

20.7
27.7
85.2
95.9
43.7
0.7
45.0

10.8
6.4
80.2
63.5
26.4
2.0
29.1


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


and Pinks and Ripes' were less than 5 percent of each season's crop. Some slight

variations in grades between seasons are evident. More of the 1951-52 crop graded

U.S. No. 2 and Pinks and Ripes than was true during the other seasons shown. Weather,

plant nutrition and soil conditions may materially affect the grade of tomatoes produced

1 No. 3's and Pinks and Ripes are packinghouse grades and not officially
designated U.S. Standards.









each season.


TABLE 4.--Tomatoes: Proportion of Total Florida Sales by Grades, Seasons 1951-52
through 1953-54

Season
Grades
1953-54 1952-53 1951-52

Percent of Total Sales
U.S. No. 10 7.8 8.6 8.1
U.S. Combination 63.6 63.6 57.9
U.S. No. 2 23.9 24.6 29.1
No. 3 3.6 1.7 1.2
Pinks and Ripes 1.1 1.5 3.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

086 percent U.S. No. 1 and better.


Grades and areas

Fifty percent of the tomatoes shipped out of Florida for which final destinations

were known moved into markets of the Norhtoast (Table 5). The Midwestern markets

received nearly one-fourth and markets in the Southeast purchased a little less than

one-fifth of the Florida crop. The Southwest and West received less than 3 percent

annually of Florida's tomato shipments. Canadian markets absorbed between 4 and

7 percent of the Florida crop in each of the years studied.

Tomatoes sold in Western markets wore of a higher average grade than those

shipped to other markets. From one-fourth to one-third of the sales to this area were

U.S. No. 1's and from 63 to 75 percent annually were U.S. Combination grade tomatoes

(Table 5). Sales to Canada were 40 to 50 percent U.S. Combination grade and from










TABLE 5.--Tomatoes: Distribution from Florida by Grade and Market Areas, Seasons
1951 -52 through 1953-54

Percent of Sales by Grade
Market
Area U.S. No.1a U.S.Com- U.S. No. 2 No. 3 Pinks and All
bination Ripes Grades


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada


10.8
7.3
2.0
0.6
24.6
11.8


All areas 8.4
Floridac 3.7


Northeast 11.9
Midwest 8.3
Southeast 1.9
Southwest ...
West 24.2
Canada 7.9
All areas 9.1
Floridac 5.1


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada
All areas
Floridac


9.6
7,6
2.5
16.7
34.2
11.5
9.2
2.2


72.2
64.9
55.4
57.6
74.7
50.9
66.3
45.8


68.4
68.7
61.8
54,6
69.6
51.4
66,0
46.4


67.0
57.7
53.9
40.2
62.8
41.7
61.0
39.6


1953-54
15.8 1.1
27.0 0.8
31.1 10.0
36.3 5.5
0.7
37.3 .


22.3
34.0


2.7
9.7


1952-53
19.5 0.2
23.0 .
30.4 5.3
35.3 7.3
6.2 ..
40.7
23.6 1.1
31.7 5.7
1951-52
23.2 0.1
34.3 0.4
36.4 6,8
43,1
3.0 .
46.8 ...


28.8
31.1


0.9
3.1


a86 percent U.S. No. I and better,
bless than .05 percent.
cMany sales to brokers in Florida were diverted to destinations not recorded on
the original sales invoice. Since these destinations were unknown, Florida was excluded
from the Southeast.


0.1
b
1.5
9..

9..
0.3
6.8


b

0.6
2.8
.t.
...
0,2
11.1


0.1
e..
0.4



0.1
24.0


50.8
22.7
18.1
2.7
1.6
4.1
100.0


52.8
21.7
15.7
2.0
0.9
6.9
100.0


53.3
26.0
10.2
1.7
2.4
6.4
100.0









37 to 47 percent U.S. No. 2's in the seasons shown. A greater proportion of the

lower grades were sold in markets of the Southeast. In general, it can be said that,

the closer the market to the producing area, the lower the grade of tomatoes purchased

for that market. This is not inconsistent with sales of other commodities in our economy.

Florida sales are shown separately in Table 5 because it was felt that some

of the sales indicating a Florida destination ultimately found their way into market

areas other than the Southeast. Many sales to brokers in Florida were diverted to

destinations not recorded on the original sales invoice.


Sizes

The larger sizes of tomatoes moved into Southwestern, Western and Mid-

western markets in greater proportion than to other market areas. A greater proportion

of the smaller sizes moved to Canadian and Northeastern markets. Over 98 percent

of the tomatoes sold in Canada were size 6x7 and smaller in the 1953-54 season

(Table 6). Over 70 percent of the sales in the Northeast were size 6x7 and smaller

in that season. Eighty-five percent of the sales in the Southwest and 55 percent of

the sales in the West were size 6x6 and larger. Little more than 5 percent variation

was noted in the distribution of sizes within a market area in the three seasons studied

except for sizes 6x6 and 6x7 in the Southeast and size 6x7 in the Southwest.

A distribution of sizes by states shows that 63 percent of the tomatoes moving

into Massachusetts and nearly 52 percent into Canada were sizes 7x7 and 7x8. In

contrast, 90 percent moving into Louisiana, 87 percent into North Carolina and 78

percent moving into Georgia were size 6x6 and larger in the 1953-54 season.









TABLE 6.--Tomatoes: Distribution of Florida Sizes by Market Area, All Grades
Combined, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54

Market Size
Area
Area 5x6a 6x6 6x7 7x7 7x8 Total

Percent of All Sizes
1953-54
Northeast 5.1 23.1 39.1 26.1 6.6 100.0
Midwest 10.1 38.2 41.9 9.0 0.8 100.0
Southeast 6.6 60.2 28.0 4.9 0.3 100.0
Southwest 15.2 69.8 13.9 0.7 0.4 100.0
West 12.2 43.2 35.4 9.2 .. 100.0
Canada 0.2 1.4 46.0 48.6 3.8 100.0
All areas 6.7 33.9 37.2 18.4 3.8 100.0
Floridab 8.3 50.8 30.0 9.1 1.8 100.0
1952-53
Northeast 4,7 19,9 34.4 32.4 8.6 100.0
Midwest 7.6 37.4 46.3 7.7 1.0 100.0
Southeast 4.2 50.8 37.8 6.6 0.6 100.0
Southwest 17.0 67.9 9.0 4.5 1.6 100,0
West 11.3 46.4 41.8 0.5 ... 100.0
Canada ... ... 43.5 45.1 11.4 100.0
All areas 5.2 28.4 37.7 23.0 5,7 100.0
Floridab 8.2 42.2 30.0 15.2 4.4 100.0
1951-52
Northeast 3.9 24.6 33.3 31.8 6.4 100.0
Midwest 8.0 39.4 42.1 7.8 2.7 100.0
Southeast 5.3 48.2 39.5 6.7 0.3 100.0
Southwest 12.1 70.8 11.9 5.0 0.2 100.0
West 11.9 43.2 43.8 1.0 0.1 100.0
Canada 0.1 0.6 33.5 57.4 8.4 100.0
All areas 5.2 30.6 36.1 23.4 4.7 100.0
Floridab 3.6 41.7 36.1 12.2 6.4 100.0

aSize 5x6 and larger.
bMany sales to brokers in Florida were diverted to destinations not recorded on
the original sales invoice. Since these destinations were unknown,Florida was excluded
from the Southeast.









Grades and sizes

Sales of the larger sizes of U.S. No. I's were proportionally greater in the

Southwest and Southeast. Canada, the Northeast and the West preferred sizes 6x7

and smaller in the best grades (Table 7).

U.S. Combination grade tomatoes in sizes 6x6 and larger were preferred in

the Southwest, Southeast and West with smaller sizes of this grade going to Canada

and the Northeast.

U.S. No. 2 tomatoes moved in the same general pattern as U.S. No. 1 and

U.S. Combination grades, except that Midwestern and Western markets took smaller

sizes in No. 2's than in the U.S. Combination grade.

No. 3's were not distributed as widely as were the better grades of tomatoes.

This would be expected of a low quality or low value product. The Southeast, South-

west and Midwest preferred the larger sizes of No. 3's while the smaller sizes were

still preferred in the Northeast. Size 6x6 and larger Pink tomatoes were preferred in

the Southeast.


Type of Sale

Nearly 80 percent of the volume of Florida tomatoes were sold on an F.O.B.

basis during the seasons studied (Table 8). Some 15 percent were consigned to com-

mission merchants in the terminal markets and between 3 and 4 percent were sold at

auction in the terminal markets. Delivered sales were about 1 percent of total sales

volume but appeared to be increasing slightly. Price arrival, joint account and local

auction sales were quite small in terms of percentage of total sales.









Grades and sizes

Sales of the larger sizes of U.S. No. I's were proportionally greater in the

Southwest and Southeast. Canada, the Northeast and the West preferred sizes 6x7

and smaller in the best grades (Table 7).

U.S. Combination grade tomatoes in sizes 6x6 and larger were preferred in

the Southwest, Southeast and West with smaller sizes of this grade going to Canada

and the Northeast.

U.S. No. 2 tomatoes moved in the same general pattern as U.S. No. 1 and

U.S. Combination grades, except that Midwestern and Western markets took smaller

sizes in No. 2's than in the U.S. Combination grade.

No. 3's were not distributed as widely as were the better grades of tomatoes.

This would be expected of a low quality or low value product. The Southeast, South-

west and Midwest preferred the larger sizes of No. 3's while the smaller sizes were

still preferred in the Northeast. Size 6x6 and larger Pink tomatoes were preferred in

the Southeast.


Type of Sale

Nearly 80 percent of the volume of Florida tomatoes were sold on an F.O.B.

basis during the seasons studied (Table 8). Some 15 percent were consigned to com-

mission merchants in the terminal markets and between 3 and 4 percent were sold at

auction in the terminal markets. Delivered sales were about 1 percent of total sales

volume but appeared to be increasing slightly. Price arrival, joint account and local

auction sales were quite small in terms of percentage of total sales.







TABLE 7.--Tomatoes: Distribution from Florida by Grade amd Size Groups by Market Areas, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54

Percent of Sales by Size Groups Within Grade
M a rk e t .... .. ..... .. .... ... ..
Area U.S. No. 1 U.S. U.S. No. 2 No. 3 Pinks and All
Combination Ripes Grades

6x6 and 6x7 and 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x6 and 6x7 and
largger smaller larger smaller larger smaller largersmaller larger smaller larger smaller
_______--- -- --- -- --- -- .-.......,- -


Northeast 25.3
Midwest 43.4
Southeast 53.8
Southwest 100.0
West 29.1
Canada 8.5
All areas 29.5
Florida 44.7


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
.Southwest
West
Canada


21.5
43.6
35.1
2e.
24.2
0.


All areas 25.1


74o7
56.6
46.2

70.9
91.5
70.5
55.3


27.6
51.2
66.0
85.1
64.4
0.2
39.8
58.4


78.5 24.6
56.4 47.4
64.9 53.2
... 94.7
75.8 65.7
100.0 .
74.9 34.2


72.4
48.8
34.0
14.9
35.6
99.8
60.2
41.6

75.4
52.6
46.8
5.3
34.3
100.0
65.8


Florida 45.3 54.7 45.6 54.4


31.3
42.2
62.6
83.4
33.6
1.2
42.4
59.3

25.8
38.1
57.8
87.4
100.0
0 e


1953-54
68.7 46.9
57.8 59.2
37.4 85.2
16.6 93.5
66.4 ...
98.8 .
57.6 75.7
40.7 61.4


1952-
74.2
61.9
42.2
12.6

100.0


33.8 66.2
47.4 52.6


53.1
40.8
14.8
6.5


24.3
38.6


55.6

80.7

...


76.4
67.8


44.4
100.0
19.3
..


23.6
32.2


28.2
43.3
66.8
85.1
55.5
1.6
43.6
5?,1


71.8
51.7
33.2
14.9
44.5
98.4
59.4
40.9


53
77.0 23.0 ... 100.0 24.6 75.4
.. ... ... 45.0 55.0
70.1 29.9 30.3 69.7 55.0 45.0
28.0 72.0 12.8 87.2 84.9 15.1
... ... ... ... 5 .8 42.2
*... .... .. ... 100.0
65.2 34.8 23.9 76.1 33.6 66.4
68.6 31.4 72.0 28.0 50.4 49.6






TABLE 7--Continued


Percent of Sales by Size Groups Within Grade

U.S.No.1 U.S. U.S. No.2 No. 3 Pinks and All
Market Combination Ripes Grades
Area
6x6 nd 6x7 and 6x6and 6xand 6x6and 6xand 6x6 nd 6x7and 6x6and 6x7 and 6x6and 6x7 and
larger smaller larger smaller larger smaller larger smaller larger smaller larger smaller

1951-52

Northeast 31.2 68.8 26.3 73.7 33.6 66.4 84.6 15.4 ... 100.0 28.5 71.5
Midwest 54.9 45.1 50.4 49.6 39.9 60.1 100.0 ... ... ... 47.4 52.6
Southeast 55.2 44.8 49.6 50.4 51.4 48.6 94.0 6.0 63.7 36.3 53.5 46.5
Southwest 88.7 11.3 86.8 13.2 77.0 23.0 ... ... .. ... 82.9 17.1
West 66.0 34.0 47.6 52.4 87.2 12.8 .. ... ... ... 55.1 44.9
Canada ... 100.0 ... 100.0 1.6 98.4 ... ... .. ... 3.8 99.2
All areas 39.4 60.6 34.4 65.6 35.8 64.2 94.1 5.9 22.6 77.4 35.8 64.2

Florida 65.7 34.3 38.4 61.6 52.4 47.6 70.3 29.7 42.5 57.5 45.3 54.7







16



TABLE 8.--Tomatoes: Distribution from Florida by Type of Sale and Market Area,
Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada
Average


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada
Average


Northeast
Midwest
Southeast
Southwest
West
Canada

Average


65.8
74.1
92.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
79.5


61.5
77.3
96.2
100.0
100.0
99.4
79.3


65.6
90.7
89.1
100.0
96.7
98.0

80.0


24.8
21.8
5.3

...
C...
15.4


31.1
20.1
2.9
.ee.



17.0


27.3
6.9
6.5
p...

1.0

15.1


8.6
...
1.5


.co

3.9


6.3
*C,
0.9
...

0.6
2.9


6.8
..e
1.4

3.3
1.0

3.4


Percent of Total Sales
1953-54
0.6 (
4.1
0.5 (
9ee

e.g
1.1 (
1952-53
0.8
2.6
...
...



0.7

1951-52
0.2
2.2
0.2
0..
..
C..

0.6


aIncludes joint account and local auction sales.


bless than .05 percent.


).2


).1



.*
. e
I..



).2


...
...


0.1


C..



e.
...





0.1
C..
e..
e..
* C.

b


C..

2.8
.8



0.8


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0










Practically all of the sales to markets in the Southwest, West and Canada were

on an F.O.B. basis. Consigned sales were heaviest to the Northeast, the area with the

greatest concentration of population and greatest potential for consuming an oversupply

of tomatoes. Consigned sales were about one-fifth of all types of sale in volume in the

Midwest and were apparently increasing over the years. Most of the terminal auction

facilities are in the Northeast, hence the concentration of this type of sale in the area.

Less than 10 percent of the sales in the Northeast were terminal auction sales but it

would appear from the data that the use of this facility may be increasing slightly.

Delivered sales were important only in the Midwest.


Type of sale and diversions

Marketing organizations vary widely with respect to sales policies. Some attempt

to sell all of the product F.O.B. the shipping point before the product moves into the

channels of distribution. Others may start the commodity on its way (rolling) and attempt

to sell F.O.B. the shipping point, diverting the product to its final destination at

specified rail diversion points. Failing this, the organization has the alternative of

consignment, terminal auction, delivered, price arrival, joint account selling or

dumping. Some organizations, although in the minority, sell all of the product on

consignment by preference or as a result of agreement with some terminal sales agency.

In order to learn to what extent diversion of tomato shipments takes place enroute to a

destination such information was taken from sales invoices and is summarized in Table 9.

Of the tomatoes sold F.O.B. and moving to a destination by rail, 23 percent

were diverted one or more times before arrival in the 1953-54 season. Less than 1 percent











TABLE 9.--Tomatoes: Proportion of Volume Shipped from Florida and Diverted Enroute
to Destination by Type of Sale, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Type of Transportation
Type of Percent of Volume Shipped Percent of Shipped Volume
Sale Diverted

Rail Truck Total Rail Truck Total


F.O.B.
Consigned
Terminal auction
Delivered
Price arrival
Average

F.O.B.
Consigned
Terminal auction
Delivered
Price arrival
Joint account
Average


F.O.B.
Consigned
Terminal auction
Delivered
Price arrival
Joint account
Local auction
Average


42.1
70.3
64.6
90.5
100.0
47.9

47.4
83.4
86.8
100.0



55.0

65.2
98.3
95.6
82.9
58.3
100.0
1.3
70.9


57.9
29.7
35.4
9.5
...
52.1

52.6
16.6
13.2

100.0
100.0
45.0


34.8
1.7
4.4
17.1
41.7

98.7
29.1


1953-54
100.0 23.1
100.0 35.0
100.0 85.6
100.0 69.5
100.0 .


100.0


30.0


1952-53
100.0 32.1
100.0 49.6
100.0 80.4
100.0 85.5
100.0 .
100.0 .


100.0


39.5


1951-52
100.0 43.5
100.0 48.6
100.0 82.8
100.0 80.6
100.0 100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


46.6


of the truck shipments sold on an F.O.B. basis were diverted enroute to a destination.

Of the total F.O.B. movements, 10 percent were diverted enroute during the 1953-54


season.


0.5
1.3

29.9
*..


0.6

0.1
5.3
*..
9..

* ..
0.4


10.0
25.0
55.3
65.7

14.7

15.3
42.2
69.8
85.5


21.9

28.3
47.7
79.9
66.8
58.3
..
7.9
33.1


...

18.0

.o.
.0.
8.0


0.3










Over 70 percent of the tomatoes from Florida sold on consignment were shipped

by rail in 1953-54. Of these, 35 percent were diverted enroute. Only 1 percent of

the truck shipments sold on consignment were diverted.

While it is believed that some sales organizations ore quite selective in the

quality of tomatoes sold atauction,the data from this study did not bear this out. Rather,

it appeared that auction sales were a last resort with the organizations studied.

Nearly 86 percent of the rail shipments sold at auction in terminal markets were diverted

enroute. The same may be true of rail shipments of tomatoes sold on a delivered basis.

The volume sold by the latter method was small relative to that sold by other methods.1

Of the total volume of Florida tomatoes sold on an F.O.B. basis in the North-

east and Midwest in the 1953-54 season, about one-sixth was diverted before reaching

a final destination. Diversionsof rail shipments sold on an F.O.B. basis were nearly

one-fourth of all F.O.B. sales of tomatoes transported by rail to these areas (Table 10).

Slightly less than one-half of all terminal auction sales in the Northeast were diverted

in transit. Nearly 60 percent of the tomatoes sold at auction in Northeastern terminal

markets moved by rail and, of these, 81 percent were diverted during transit. Most

shipments sold on a delivered basis in the Northeast and Midwest moved by rail and,

in both areas, over 70 percent were diverted enroute to destination. While rail ship-

ments sold F.O.B. in the Southeast were less than 10 percent of sales by this method,

over one-third of these were diverted enroute. Diversions of rail shipments sold on

consignment to buyers in the Southeast were also higher than diversions of consignment

shipments to other areas.


'Table 8 indicated that only 1.1 percent of the 1953-54 volume was sold on a
delivered basis.










TABLE 10.--Tomatoes: Proportion of Volume Shipped from Florida and Diverted Enroute
to Destination by Market Area and Type of Sale, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Type of Transportation
Market Area
and Percent of Volume Shipped Percent of Shipped Volume
Type of Sale Diverted
Rail Truck Total Rail Truck Total


Northeast
F.O.B.
Consigned
Terminal auction
Delivered
Price arrival


Average
Midwest
F.O.B.
Consigned
Delivered
Average


Southeast
F.O.B.
Consigned
Terminal auction
Delivered
Price arrival
Average
Southwest
F.O.B.
West
F.O.B.


1953-54


65.3
73.1
58.5
84.8
100.0


34.7
26.9
41.5
15.2
. 0 0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


66.8 33.2 100.0


76.8
61.5
99.3


23.2
38.5
0.7


100.0
100.0
100.0


74.4 25.6 100.0


8.4
74.0
100.0
62.5
100.0


91.6
26.0

37.5
..* *


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


13.6 86.4 100.0


4.3 95.7 100.0

65.8 34.2 100.0


24.6
31.8
81.4
75.2

31.2

22.1
36.6
70.7
27.4


35.9
47.7
100.0
53.2
.. 9
46.7


28.0

7.1


1.3
2.3

0;: *
100.0
9..


1.7

0.9
*..
* 9.
0.6


0.2
.0.

...

0.1


S..


16.6
.23.9
47.6
79.0

21.4

17.2
22.5
70.2
20.6


3.2
35.3
100.0
33.3
....
6.5


1.2


2.9 100.0


Total U.S. and
Canada


47.9 52.1 100.0 30.0


Canada
F.O.B.


97.1


... 4.7


9.0


33.7


9.8


0.6 14.7










TABLE 10--Continued


Type of Transportation
Market Area Percent of Volume Shipped Percent of Shipped Volume
and Diverted
Type of Sale
Rail Truck Total Rail Truck Total

1952-53


Northeast
F.O.B.
Consigned
Terminal auction
Delivered
Price arrival
Joint account


Average
Midwest
F.O.B.
Consigned
Delivered
Average


Southeast
F.O.D.
Consigned
Terminal auction

Average

Southwest
F.O.B.

West
F.O.B.
Canada
F.O.B.
Terminal auction
Average
Total U.S. and
Canada


73.0
91.0
85.0
100.0

*


27.0
9.0
15.0
100
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


79.3 20.7 100.0


76.2
53.8
100.0
72.3


11.9
84.6
100.0


23.8
46.2
t o


100.0
100.0
100.0


27.7 100.0


88.1
15.4
*


100.0
100.0
100.0


14.8 85.2 100.0


4.1 95.9 100.0


56.3 43.7 100.0


99.3
100.0
99.3


0.7 100.0
100.0
0.7 100.0


55.0 45.0 100.0 39.5


34.3
48.5
78.7
88.4
.0

42.9


30.1
48.7
83.4
34.8


51.3
66.3
100.0

56.8


0.7
8.6


0 00
0..



1.7


..
1.0

0.3


a
23.5


0.1


25.2
44.9
66.9
88.4
...

34.4


22.9
26.7
83.4
25.2


6.1
59.7
100.0

8.5






4.8


0 0


8.4


15.3
15.2
15.2


15.1

15.1


. a


0.4 21.9







TABLE 10--Continued


Type of Transportation
Market Area Percent of Volume Shipped Percent of Shipped Volume
and Diverted
Type of Sale
Rail Truck Total Rail Truck Total

1951-52
Northeast
F.O.B. 84.2 15.8 100.0 44.4 ... 37.4
Consigned 99.3 0.7 100.0 45.4 ... 45.1
Terminal auction 98.3 1.7 100.0 80.4 *.. 79.0
Delivered 100.0 ... 100.0 50.1 ... 50.1
Price arrival ... 100.0 100.0. .,
Average 89.2 10.8 100.0 47.4 ... 42.3
Midwest
F.O.B. 93.2 6.8 100.0 51.0 ... 47.5
Consigned 100.0 ... 100.0 53.5 .,. 53.5
Delivered 88.8 11.2 100.0 87.9 ... 78.1
Price arrival 100.0 ... 100.0 100.0 ... 100.0
Average 93.6 6.4 100.0 52.1 ... 48.8
Southeast
F.O.B. 13.9 86.1 100.0 53.1 ... 7.4
Consigned 89.8 10.2 100.0 69.3 ... 62.2
Terminal auction 90.3 9.7 100.0 100.0 72.2 97.3
Delivered ... 100.0 100.0 ... ...
Joint account 100.0 ... 100.0 .....
Local auction 1.3 98.7 100.0 ... 8.0 7.9
Average 19.8 80.2 100.0 60.4 0.4 12.2
Southwest
F.O.B. 36.5 63.5 100.0 17.0 ... 6.2
West
F.O.B. 76.1 23.9 100.0 16.1 ... 12.3
Terminal auction ... 100.0 100.0 ... .. ...
Average 73.6 26.4 100.0 16.1 ... 11.9
Canada
F.O.B. 98.0 2.0 100.0 16.0 ... 15.7
Consigned 100.0 ... 100.0 ... .....
Terminal auction 100.0 ... 100.0 100.0 ... 100.0
Average 98.1 1.9 100.0 16.7 ... 16.4
Total U.S.and Canada 70.9 29.1 100.0 46.6 0.3 33.1

aLess than .05 percent.









In all areas where a comparison by types of sale is possible, it appears that

diversions were fewer in connection with F.O.B. sales than for other types of sale.

Table 10 also indicates that diversions by type of sale decreased from the 1951-52

season to 1953-54. The relative volume sold by type of sale remained fairly constant

during the same period. These facts may indicate that firms were "rolling" fewer

tomatoes with the hope of selling enroute. They could also mean more direct selling

on an F.O.B. basis and earlier decisions on other methods of sale. The increase in

truck shipments with their relatively few diversions enroute may also be a contributing

factor to the percentage decrease in rail diversions.

Diversion of truck shipments was negligible. Truck shipments are not easily

diverted in transit. In most instances truck drivers have definite instructions about

their destination before moving a load. Should something occur enroute, they must

call back to the loading point for further instructions. Occasionally, they may be

advised to call in from a specified way-point for possible changes in destination.


Type of First Buyer

The organization or individual purchasing tomatoes from Florida sales agencies

was recorded from the original sales invoice. A complete list of these buyers was

compiled and classified by type of buyer using The Redbook and The Bluebook infor-

mation on dealers and handlers of fruits and vegetables. In many cases buyers had

more than one classification. Where this occurred, the first one given was used.


1This can be verified by referring to Table 8.









Buyers and grades

Repackers purchased over 45 percent of Florida's tomatoes in the 1953-54

season and 42 percent in each of the two prior seasons studied (Table 11). Commission

merchants, representing other unknown buyers, were second in importance. In 1953-54

they handled 20 percent of the Florida tomatoes. In the two earlier seasons they handled

26 and 30 percent, respectively, of the Florida sales volume.

Chain stores bought direct 6 percent of the Florida tomatoes in the 1951-52

and 1953-54 seasons. In 1952-53 they bought less than 4 percent direct. This is not

to say that chain stores bought only this small percentage of the total Florida crop.

They probably purchased a considerable volume of Florida tomatoes from repackers and

perhaps from other types of buyers. Chain stores are believed to have done an increas-

ing volume of direct business in more recent seasons. Many chains have established

field offices in Florida and have their own buyers at the principal loading points.

Cash buyers and truckers appear to have purchased an increasing volume of

tomatoes from Florida while buying brokers and selling brokers have purchased less of

the annual Florida tomato crop.

Buyer purchases within grades indicate by whom the individual grades of

tomatoes are being purchased. In the 1953-54 season repackers purchased 43 percent

of the U.S. No. 1 grade tomatoes. Chain stores purchased nearly 20 percent and

commission merchants handled 17 percent of the U.S. No. I's (Table 11), Repackers

and commission merchants handled proportionately as many or more U.S. Combination

grade and U.S. No. 2's as they did U.S. No, I's.

Cash buyers and truckers handled one-half of the No. 3's in 1952-53 and









TABLE 11 .--Tomatoes: Proportion of Purchases Within Grades by Type of Buyer,
Florida, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54

Grade
Type of Buyer U.S.No.1 U.S. U.S.No.2 No.3 Pinks
Combi- and Total
nation Ripes

Percent of Purchases Within Grades
1953-54
Chain stores 19.9 7.4 05 ... ... 6.4
Wholesalers 3.4 3.1 2.1 1.4 ... 2.8
Selling brokers 1.9 1.6 3.1 ... 3.7 1.9
Jobbers 8.9 10.0 11.4 13.8 2.4 10.3
Commission merchants 17.4 21.7 20.6 4.1 1.2 20.3
Buying brokers 4.6 6.1 11.3 12.9 1.4 7.4 1
Repackers 43.2 47.9 43.1 18.0 73.6 45.6%
Cash buyers and truckers 0.7 2.2 7.9 49.8 17.7 5.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1952-53
Chain stores 8.1 4.1 0.5 ... ... 3.5
Wholesalers 3.5 1.9 0.9 ... ... 1.7
Selling brokers 3.9 1.3 2,0 ... ... 1.6
Jobbers 10.3 10.9 16.1 12.3 0.5 12.0
Commission merchants 37.7 23.5 31.9 3.2 1.8 26.1
Buying brokers 4.9 7.4 12,9 17.7 ... 8.6
Repackers 31.6 48.5 28.8 14.6 82.4 42.1
Cash buyers and truckers ... 2.4 6.9 52.2 15.3 4.5
Total 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1951-52
Chain stores 16.2 7.7 1.9 ... ... 6.3
Wholesalers 7.0 2.1 2.1 ... ... 2.4
Selling brokers ... 3.4 1.5 1.3 ... 2.4
Jobbers 2.0 4.5 8.5 0.5 0.4 5.3
Commission merchants 32.4 31.1 33.3 4.4 1.3 30.4
Buying brokers 1.4 6.9 16.8 31.6 0.1 9.4
Repackers 39.1 43.1 34.4 32.6 92.8 42.0
Cash buyers and truckers 1.9 1.2 1.5 29.6 5.4 1,8


Total


100.0 100.0


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0









1953-54. Repackers also handled a surprisingly large proportion of this packinghouse

grade. The bulk of the packinghouse Pinks and Ripes were purchased by repackers

and cash buyers and truckers in all three seasons.

The distribution of buyers' purchases of the various grades indicates the con-

centration of purchases by type of buyer. Chain stores preferred U.S. Combination

and U.S. No. 1 grade tomatoes to an increasing degree (Table 12). Wholesalers

were increasing their purchases of U.S. Combination and U.S. No. 2 grades during

the period studied. From three-fifths to nearly three-fourths of the purchases by

repackers were of the U.S. Combination grade. Cash buyers and truckers purchased

a greater proportion of No. 3's and Pinks and Ripes than other types of buyers.


Buyers and sizes

Nearly two-thirds of the purchases by cash buyers and truckers were of sizes

6x6 and larger1 (Table 13). About the same proportion of the tomatoes handled by

commission merchants were sizes 6x7 and smaller in the seasons shown. Wholesalers

decreased the proportion of small sizes purchased and chain stores increased purchases

of 6x7 and smaller sizes slightly. Repackers purchased 7 percent fewer 6x7 and smaller

tomatoes in 1953-54 than they had taken in the two prior seasons. This change was

perhaps due to the decrease in total volume of small sizes available in the 1953-54

season.

Table 14 supplements the information given in Table 13 by showing the propor-

tion of the total volume in each size group and of all sizes which were purchased by

I ft was shown earlier (Tables 6 and 7) that Southeastern and Southwestern
market areas preferred larger sizes. These are also the areas of heaviest truck
transported volume.









TABLE 12. --Tomatoes: Proportion of Buyer Purchases by Grade,
Florida, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Grade
U.S. U.S. U.S No.3 Pinks
Type of Buyer No. 1 Combi- No. 2 and Total
nation Ripes

Percent of Purchases by Grade
1953-54
Chain stores 24.3 73.7 2.0 ... ... 100.0
Wholesalers 9.6 70.3 18.4 1.7 ... 100.0
Selling brokers 7.5 52.3 38.1 ... 2.1 100.0
Jobbers 6.7 61.7 26.5 4.8 0.3 100.0
Commission merchants 6.7 68.2 24.3 0.7 0.1 100.0
Buying brokers 4.8 52.4 36.4 6.2 0.2 100.0
Repackers 7.4 66.8 22.6 1.4 1.8 100.0
Cash buyers and truckers 1.1 26.4 35.5 33.3 3,7 100.0
All Buyers 7.8 63.6 23.9 3.6 1.1 100.0

1952-53
Chain stores 20.2 76.4 3.4 ... ... 100.0
Wholesalers 17.4 69.3 13.3 ... ... 100.0
Selling brokers 20.6 49.8 29.6 ... ... 100.0
Jobbers 7.4 57.8 33.0 1.7 0.1 100.0
Commission merchants 12.5 57.2 30.0 0.2 0.1 100.0
Buying brokers 4.9 54.7 37.0 3.4 ... 100.0
Repackers 6.5 73.1 16.9 0.6 2.9 100.0
Cash buyers and truckers ... 35.7 39.2 19.8 5.3 100.0
All Buyers 8.6 63.6 24.6 1.7 1.5 100.0

1951-52
Chain stores 20.7 70.4 8.9 ... ... 100.0
Wholesalers 23.6 50.9 25.5 ... ... 100.0
Selling brokers ... 80.9 18.5 0.6 ... 100.0
Jobbers 3.0 49.5 47.1 0.1 0.3 100.0
Commission merchants 8.6 59.1 31.9 0.2 0.2 100.0
Buying brokers 1.2 42.6 52.2 3.9 0.1 100.0
Repackers 7.6 59.5 23.9 0.9 8.1 100.0
Cash buyers and truckers 8.5 36.7 24.8 19.1 10.9 100.0
All Buvers 8.1 57.9 29.1 1.2 3.7 100.0


... i --v


--- -- -- --


v








TABLE 13.--Tomatoes: Proportion of Buyer Purchases by Size Groups, Florida,
Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54

Size Group
Type of Buyer
6x6 and larger 6x7 and smaller Total

Percent of all sizes
1953 -54
Chain stores 46.7 53.3 100.0
Wholesalers 46.0 54.0 100.0
Selling brokers 34.7 65.3 100.0
Jobbers 46.2 53.8 100.0
Commission merchants 34.1 65.9 100.0
Buying brokers 53.4 46.6 100.0
Repackers 41.4 58.6 100.0
Cash buyers and truckers 65.1 34.9 100.0
All Buyers 42.9 57.1 100.0
1952-53
Chain stores 44.8 55.2 100.0
Wholesalers 28.7 71.3 100.0
Selling brokers 25.6 74.4 100.0
Jobbers 39.2 60.8 100.0
Commission merchants 30.0 70.0 100.0
Buying brokers 41.6 58.4 100.0
Repackers 34.2 65.8 100.0
Cash buyers and truckers 63.0 37.0 100.0
All Buyers 35.7 64.3 100.0
1951-52
Chain stores 49.5 50.5 100.0
Wholesalers 26.4 73.6 100.0
Selling brokers 20.1 79.9 100.0
Jobbers 26.9 73.1 100.0
Commission merchants 37.1 62.9 100.0
Buying brokers 48.5 51.5 100.0
Repackers 34.7 65.3 100.0
Cash buyers and truckers 63.9 36.1 100.0


62.8 100.0


All.Buyers


37.2








TABLE 14. --Tomatoes: Proportion of Buyer Purchases Within Size Groups, Florida,
Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54

Size Groups
Type of Buyer Size Groups
6x6 and larger 6x7 and smaller Total

Percent within size groups
1953-54
Chain stores 6.9 5.9 6.4
Wholesalers 3.0 2.6 2.8
Selling brokers 1,5 2.2 1.9
Jobbers 11.1 9.7 10.3
Commission merchants 16.1 23.4 20.3
Buying brokers 9.3 6.1 7.4
Repackers 44.0 46.8 45.6
Cash buyers and truckers 8.1 3,3 5.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
1952-53
Chain stores 4.3 3.0 3.5
Wholesalers 1.4 1.9 1.7
Selling brokers 1.2 1.9 1.6
Jobbers 13.1 11.4 12.0
Commission merchants 22.0 28,4 26.1
Buying brokers 10.0 7.8 8.6
Repockers 40.3 4'3.1 42.1
Cash buyers and truckers 7.7 2.5 4.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
1951-52
Chain stores 8.5 5.1 6.3
Wholesalers 1.7 2.8 2.4
Selling brokers 1.3 3.1 2.4
Jobbers 3.8 6,1 5.3
Commission merchants 30.3 30.5 30.4
Buying brokers 12.2 7,7 9 4
Repackers 39.1 43.6 42.0
Cash buyers and truckers 3.1 1,. ,1.8


100.0 100.0


Total


100.0








the various types of buyers. For instance, although cash buyers and truckers purchased

a preponderance of sizes 6x6 and larger tomatoes (Table 13), their volume was only

8 percent of the total volume of this size group sold (Table 14). Repackers made 41

percent of their purchases in sizes 6x6 and larger and purchased 44 percent of the total

volume of this group sold and nearly 46 percent of the volume of all tomatoes sold in

the 1953-54 season.


Type of Container

Between the 1951-52 season and the 1953-54 season the tomato industry changed

shipping containers. In 1951-52 about one-half of the tomatoes from Florida were

shipped in lugs. Another one-fourth was shipped in 60 pound nailed crates (Table 15).

In the 1952-53 season one-fourth was shipped in lugs and less than one-tenth in the

nailed crate. The 60 pound wirebound container was used in shipping nearly 45 per-

cent of the tomatoes in 1952-53. In the 1953-54 season wirebounds were used on

more than one-half of the crop and lugs on less than one-fifth of the volume of

tomatoes sold. Use of the 40 pound fiberboard container increased in each season.

About one-fifth of each seasons crop was shipped in the 60 pound field box.


Containers by grades

The field box remains the most popular container in transportation of No. 3's

and Pinks and Ripes (Table 16). This is not surprising since it was shown earlier that

repackers and cash buyers and truckers purchased the major portion of these grades.

Lugs were still used in the 1953-54 season to pack one-fourth of the total volume of

U.S. No. 2 grade tomatoes. One might not expect this since repackers purchased








the various types of buyers. For instance, although cash buyers and truckers purchased

a preponderance of sizes 6x6 and larger tomatoes (Table 13), their volume was only

8 percent of the total volume of this size group sold (Table 14). Repackers made 41

percent of their purchases in sizes 6x6 and larger and purchased 44 percent of the total

volume of this group sold and nearly 46 percent of the volume of all tomatoes sold in

the 1953-54 season.


Type of Container

Between the 1951-52 season and the 1953-54 season the tomato industry changed

shipping containers. In 1951-52 about one-half of the tomatoes from Florida were

shipped in lugs. Another one-fourth was shipped in 60 pound nailed crates (Table 15).

In the 1952-53 season one-fourth was shipped in lugs and less than one-tenth in the

nailed crate. The 60 pound wirebound container was used in shipping nearly 45 per-

cent of the tomatoes in 1952-53. In the 1953-54 season wirebounds were used on

more than one-half of the crop and lugs on less than one-fifth of the volume of

tomatoes sold. Use of the 40 pound fiberboard container increased in each season.

About one-fifth of each seasons crop was shipped in the 60 pound field box.


Containers by grades

The field box remains the most popular container in transportation of No. 3's

and Pinks and Ripes (Table 16). This is not surprising since it was shown earlier that

repackers and cash buyers and truckers purchased the major portion of these grades.

Lugs were still used in the 1953-54 season to pack one-fourth of the total volume of

U.S. No. 2 grade tomatoes. One might not expect this since repackers purchased








TABLE 15. --Tomatoes: Distribution of Volume of Sales from Florida by Type of Container,
Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54

Type of Container
Season 60 Pound 60 Pound 60 Pound 40 Pound Lug Total
Wirebound NailedCrate Field Box Fiberboard

Percent of Volume Sold
1953-54 52.9 3.5 21.4 3.2 19.0 100.0
1952-53 44.4 8.3 20.0 0.8 26.5 100.0
1951-52 8.7 24.0 18.1 0.1 49.1 100.0



over 40 percent of the U.S. No. 2's in that season.' Handling tomatoes in lugs is

probably more costly in terms of labor for repackers than handling unwrapped fruit

in any other standard container. Lug-packed tomatoes must be unwrapped and placed

in ripening-room containers by the repacker.


Container by buyers

Purchases by the various type of buyers tended, with a few exceptions, to

follow the same general pattern in types of containers used as was shown for all con-

tainers in Table 15. Chain stores switched from field boxes and nailed crates in 1951-52

to wirebound containers in 1952-53 and increased their use of wirebounds in 1953-54 at

the expense of lugs and nailed crates (Table 17). Repackers and jobbers increased their

purchases in field boxes as well as in wirebound crates in the seasons shown.

Wholesalers were still buying more than one-half of their volume in lugs. For

such dealers, selling smaller containers to independent stores and small chains is

probably profitable. One might wonder why wholesalers were not purchasing more

1See Table 11. Table 15 indicates that only 13.5 percent of repacker purchases
were in lugs so it is not a big item.












tomatoes in the 40 pound container.

TABLE 16. --Tomatoes: Proportion of Volume of Sales by Grade and Type Container,
Florida, Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Grade Type Container
Grade -
60 Pound 60 Pound 60 Pound 40 Pound Lug Total
Wirebound Nailed Crate Field Box Fiberboard

Percent of Volume Sold


U.S. No. 1
U.S. Combination
U.S. No. 2
No. 3
Pinks and Ripes
Average


U. S. No. 1
U.S. Combination
U.S. No. 2
No. 3
Pinks and Ripes
Average

U.S. No. 1
U.S. Combination
U.S. No. 2
No. 3
Pinks and Ripes
Average


73.7
58.2
40.4
13.1
0.8
52.9


49.1
51.6
29.5
5.3
a
44.4

10.1
10.2
6.7
3.6

8.7


12.2
2.9
2.7
1.6
2.2
3.5


25.8
8.5
2.7

a
8.3

13.3
30.8
16.6
14.2
2.1
24.0


1953-54
3.4
15.7
29.7
85.1
96.2
21.4
1952-53
4.4
15.4
27.3
94.7
100.0
20.0
1951-52
11.2
11.5
20.6
82.2
97.9
18.1


0.4
4.5
1.1
0.2
0.1
3.2


* ..
1.2
0.1
...

0.8

* ..

0.2

...
0.1


10.3
18.7
26.1
...
0.7
19.0


20,7
23,3
40.4

g.o
26.5

65.4
47.5
55.9


49..
49.1


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


OLess than .05 percent.


- --









TABLE 17. --Tomatoes: Buyer Purchases by Type of Container, Florida,
Seasons 1951-52 through 1953-54


Type of Buyer Type of Container
Type of Buyer---------- .--------
60 Pound i 60 Pound 60 Pound 40 Pound Lug Total
Wirebound NailedCrate Field Box Fiberboard

Percent of Purchases


Chain stores
Wholesalers
Selling brokers
Jobbers
Commission merchants
Buying brokers
Repackers
Cash buyers and
truckers
Average

Chain stores
Wholesalers
Selling brokers
Jobbers
Commission merchants
Buying brokers
Repackers
Cash buyers and
truckers
Average

Chain stores
Wholesalers
Selling brokers
Jobbers
Commission merchants
Buying brokers
Repockers
Cash buyers and
truckers
Average


83.2
38.3
80.1
39.1
69.9
38.4
51.2

12.5
52.9

60.5
40.3
54.0
28.5
48.4
39.1
48.8

17.2
44.4


2.7
17.5
6.7
7.3
11.0
10.9

3.4
8.7


1.7
5.1
5.7
1.2
2.1
9.3
3.9

1.7
3.5


12.6
5.2
8.4
3.5
8.2
6.6
10.6

0.5
8.3

29.0
12.4
66.7
12.5
18.9
24.4
27.5

1.3
24.0


1953-54
4.0
4.1
5.3
11.7
1.7
41.5
26.1

83.2
21.4
1952-53
1.0
2.0
10.0
14.1
0.8
44.3
25.1

79.7
20.0
1951-52
40.4
.e..
8.2
4.0
1.0
56.6
19.4

77.1
18.1


. ..

1.8
a
1.4
4.9
5.3

1.3
3.2

* ..
* ..

0.3
0.7
0.8
1.1

1.6
0.8

. ..
...
0.2
...
e..
*0.

0.1

0.1


11.1
52.5
7.1
48.0
24.9
5.9
13.5

1.3
19.0

25.9
52.5
27.6
53.6
41.9
9.2
14.4


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


1.0 100.0
26.5 100.0


30.6
84.9
7.4
76.8
72.8
8.0
42.1

18.2
49.1


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0


aLess than .05 percent.








Summary

The trend is toward heavier marketing of tomatoes from Florida. The proportion

of the total volume transported in trucks is increasing. Rail volume exceeded truck

volume only to the more distant markets and to the areas with the greatest concentrations

of population. Truck movement was heaviest to markets in the Southeast and 'South-

west but was increasing to all other market areas in the Northeast, Midwest and Canada.

Of the tomatoes moving to market by rail, 90 percent had refrigeration or

ventilation enroute. The other 10 percent were heated to protect them from cold

damage. About three-fourths of the tomatoes shipped by truck were iced, refrigerated

or fan-cooled enroute. The remainder moved without specified cooling service; how-

ever, some such service may have been provided without specific written instructions.

Some 60 percent of Florida's tomatoes were sold as U.S. Combination grade,

25 percent as U.S. No. 2's and less than 10 percent as U.S. No. I's. Less than 5

percent were packinghouse grades, No. 3's and Pinks and Ripes.

The markets of the Northeastern area of the United States purchased about 50

percent of Florida's tomatoes. Markets in the Midwest received one-fourth and the

Southeast about one-fifth of the annual Florida volume. The Southwest and West

received less than 3 percent and Canadian markets absorbed 4 to 7 percent annually.

Western markets preferred tomatoes of a higher average grade than Canadian

and Northeastern markets. A high proportion of the No. 3's were sold in the Southeast.

The larger sizes of tomatoes were preferred in the Southestern, Southeastern,

Western and Midwestern markets. Over 70 percent of the tomatoes sold in the North-

east and 98 percent sold in Canada were sizes 6x7 and smaller. Little variation was

noted in size preferences in the different market areas during the three seasons studied.









F.O.B. sales accounted for 80 percent of the Florida volume annually. About

15 percent were sold on consignment. Three percent were sold at terminal market

auctions. Delivered, price arrival and joint account sales accounted for less than

2 percent annually.

Consigned and terminal auction sales were heaviest in the Northeast. F.O.B.

sales were the predominant type in all areas and exclusively so to the Southwest, West

and Canada in 1953-54.

The practice of "rolling" cars of tomatoes toward market and diverting enroute

to some final destination seems to have decreased during the period studied. Some

47 percent of the 1951-52 rail shipments were diverted enroute while only 30 percent

were so handled in the 1953-54 season. Very few truck shipments were diverted during

the seasons studied. Trucks are not easily diverted in transit.

More of the volume moving to the Southeast, Northeast and Midwest was

diverted enroute than was true of shipments to other areas. Diversions of F.O.B. and

consigned sales were greatest in the Southeast. Most of the volume sold at terminal

auctions was diverted.

Repackers purchased from 42 to 45 percent of Florida's tomatoes in the seasons

studied. Commission merchants handled 20 percent or more of the crop annually.

Direct purchases by chain stores were 4 to 6 percent of total volume. Chains undoubtedly

purchased a larger volume from other dealers. Their direct purchases are believed to

have increased materially since the 1953-54 season. Cash buyers and truckers appeared

to be purchasing an increasing volume of the annual crop from Florida.

Chain stores preferred U.S. No. 1 and U.S. Combination grade tomatoes.









Repackers concentrated on U.S. Combination and U.S. No. 2 grades and also handled

many of the Pinks and Ripes. Cash buyers and truckers concentrated their purchases

in the lower grades and Pinks and Ripes.

Cash buyers and truckers preferred the larger sizes of tomatoes while commission

merchants handled more of the smaller sizes. Chain stores increased their purchases

of smaller sizes while repackers purchased proportionally fewer small sizes from

1951-52 to 1953-54.

The 60 pound wirebound crate had, to a large extent, replaced the lug as a

shipping container for Florida tomatoes by the 1953-54 season. There was a slight

increase in the use of the 60 pound field box as a shipping container during the seasons

studied. Buyer purchases by type of container tended to follow the general trend in

use of containers. Wholesalers were about the only exception. In 1953-54 they

purchased half of their relatively small volume in lugs. Lugs were used for packing

relatively more U.S. No. 2 tomatoes than for any other grade in the 1952-53 and

1953-54 seasons.









DLB:es 6/10/58
Exp. Sta., Ag.Ec. -1,000




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