BULLETIN 340 MAY 1962 VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT by WHOLESALERS in ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN E. V. Smith, Director UNIVERSITY Auburn, Alabama CONTENTS Page FIR M S STUDIED ----------------------- 4 G ros s Sale s -----------------------------SERVICES PERFORMED------------------6 4 C ustomers -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Sto rag e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Transportation --- - 6 - 6 ------ ------------ ------- 7 --------- 8 Commodity Preparation--- Ot h e r -- ---- ------- ---- ---- -- - -------- ---------- 8 PROCUREMENT PRACTICES----------------- 9 Commodities Handled------------ --- ---- - 9 A ge nc ie s-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Location of Supply--------------------------------13 Method of Purchase--------------------------------13 Containers Preferred--------------------------------14 V arieties Preferred---------------------------------15 PROBLEM SUMMARY A REAS--------------------------------------15 AND CONCLUSIONS --------------------------- 17 A P P E NDIX -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -20 FIRST PRINTING 4M, MAY 1962 VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT by WHOLESALERS in ALABAMA* D. R. STREET, Assistant in Agricultural Economics** E. E. KERN, JR., Associate Agricultural Economist T within any stateconcentratingis fresh vegetablesof for distribuof tion or region primarly that wholesalers HE FUNCTION located in cities and towns along main highways and railways. Firms in any one state often draw supplies from wide geographical areas, including foreign countries. Mass marketing of vegetables in heavily populated centers away from areas of production has contributed to the problems of procurement. An understanding of procurement practices and problems of wholesaler vegetable firms is fundamental to the development and maintenance of efficient production and marketing systems for vegetables in the Southern Region. The primary objective of this study was to present major characteristics and procurement practices of wholesale vegetable buyers in Alabama and to point up opportunities for market adjustments based on buyer requirements, facilities, and problems. To this end, personal interviews were made with managers of all wholesale vegetable firms operating within the State in 1959. Information was recorded on prepared forms and subsequently machine processed for analysis. *This study was supported by Funds provided by the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 and by State research funds. It is a contributing project to the Southern Regional Research Project SM-8, "Evaluation of Alternative Vegetable Marketing Organizations and Handling Methods." * Resigned. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FIRMS STUDIED Firms cooperating in the study included 32 jobbers, 23 carlot receivers, four chain store representatives, and three brokers (Appendix Table 1)1. Most of the fresh vegetables consumed within the State pass through one or more of these agencies. Fifty-eight per cent of the firms were located in the northern part of the State (Figure 1). Carlot receivers and chain concentration points were found primarily in larger towns and cities convenient to the disposition of commodities over a wide geographical area. Jobbers were well dispersed throughout the State, and were especially adapted to the general needs of nearby customers. Legal structures were found to differ among types of firms in the study (Appendix Table 2). Most chains and carlot receivers favored corporate or partnership arrangements whereas over onehalf of the jobbers were single proprietorships. The complexity of larger firms in terms of organization and management, along with their need for raising larger amounts of capital, explain their preference. About 60 per cent of all firms had been operating under present organizational structures less than 15 years (Appendix Table 3). Jobbers and brokers were of the most recent origin. Many small firms were started following World War II, encouraged by the brisk demand for vegetables, availability of credit, and the pursuance of business opportunities by many individuals. Unlike the average, about 40 per cent of the carlot receivers and three of the four chains had been operating under present structures more than 20 years. Gross Sales Gross sales of carlot receivers increased from $1,116,460 in 1954 to $1,271,733 in 1958. During this period, jobbers' sales increased from $370,258 to $372,654. It was also noted that while jobbers' sales matched about one-third of carlot receivers' sales in 1954, the relationship had been reduced from 33 to less than a. Jobber-buys in less than carload quantities for resale at wholesale. b. Carlot Receiver-buys in carlot quantities for resale at wholesale. c. Chain store representative-supervises purchases of vegetables for integrated retail outlets. d. Broker-operates on a fee basis for other wholesalers. He may or may not take title to the vegetables. 1 VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 5 Legend Chain store - Corlot receiver = Jobber Broker Locations of wholesale vegetable firms in study by type, 1959, are shown above. 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 30 per cent 5 years later. In addition, by removing the effects of inflation 2 on actual dollar sales, it was found that many firms were losing economic importance although actual sales were increasing (Appendix Tables 4 and 5). For example, about 75 per cent of the carlot receivers experienced actual sales increases between 1954 and 1958; by removing inflationary effects, the number of firms experiencing gains was reduced to 56 per cent. Deflation of price data presents a clearer interpretation of changes in amounts of produce handled by firms than is possible from actual sales data. All this is indicative of the changing market structure for vegetables. Many managers reportedly were aware of this and felt their firms would be adversely affected unless they could make the required adjustments to remain competitive. SERVICES PERFORMED Customers Retailers and other wholesalers were the major types of customers served by both jobbers and carlot receivers (Appendix Table 6). Approximately 70 per cent of jobbers' and 50 per cent of carlot receivers' sales were with retail outlets. Fourteen per cent of the sales volume of carlot receivers, but less than four per cent of jobbers, were with chain organizations. About 18 per cent of the sales volume of jobbers, and 8 per cent of that of carlot receivers, were with miscellaneous buyers such as restaurants, hotels, and consumers. All chain buyers served their integrated units. About 59 per cent of the carlot receivers and 61 per cent of the jobbers reporting indicated that trends in sales of fresh vegetables to all types of customers were tending to either decrease or show no appreciable change (Appendix Table 7). All chain representatives reported persistent increases in demands for products sold through their retail outlets, and continued increases were anticipated. Storage Adequacy of storage facilities to meet customer requirements was a matter considered by managers. Three of the four chains and a third of the earlot receivers had 20,000 or more square feet 2 Wholesale price index for all commodities used to deflate data. of 1947-49; 1958--119.2 of 1947-49) (1954-110.3 VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 7 of space available for storage whereas none of the jobbers had access to facilities of this size. Almost 60 per cent of the jobbers had less than 5,000 square feet of space available (Appendix Table 8). Only one chain operator considered storage facilities adequate for future operations in line with anticipated business expansion. Approximately two-thirds of the carlot receivers and jobbers considered warehouse space adequate for the present. Less than half of both groups considered facilities adequate for future needs. All chains owned warehouse facilities that they had in use as contrasted with about two-thirds of the earlot receivers and half the jobbers who owned facilities being used. Cooling-room facilities, considered necessary by managers in the successful handling of produce, were generally considered inadequate to meet present and future requirements. Chain representatives and earlot receivers were especially sensitive to this need. Most of these firms had above 1,000 square feet of space available as compared with only 25 per cent of the jobbers reporting this amount of capacity or above (Appendix Table 9). Holding capacity for frozen foods was not evident among firms visited. Only five of the total had commercial-type frozen food rooms larger than consumer units. Frozen food sales were relatively unimportant among firms studied. Transportation More than 90 per cent of the vegetable supplies received by firms were transported by truck. Refrigerated trucks belonging to carlot receivers and jobbers were concentrated among a few firms. Averaging just under 5 trucks per firm, only 12 carlot receivers and 6 jobbers had facilities of this type. All chain operators, conversely, had such facilities ranging in number from 10 to 85 per firm. Adequacy was expressed only among carlot receivers and jobbers, not chains. All chain organizations had from 5 to 10 non-refrigerated trucks of 21/2 -ton capacity. Also, more than 80 per cent of the carlot receivers and jobbers owned non-refrigerated trucks of similar capacity. Need for increased capacity was especially felt among chains. All chains, 18 carlot receivers, and 12 jobbers had connecting rail terminals to their warehouses. Reduced need for this type of facility prompted most managers to report present facilities to be adequate. 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Commodity Preparation The matter of performing additional services to products before distribution among customers was of concern to managers. None of the chain organizations had grading facilities nor did they expect such services in the future. Twelve earlot receivers and seven jobbers were equipped to grade certain kinds of produce. Some jobbers and carlot receivers considered this type of service a possibility in effectively meeting future competition. Washing and waxing equipment was found only among a very few independent firms and further acquisition of this type of equipment was not anticipated by any of the managers interviewed. Seventeen carlot receivers and four jobbers had boxing and bagging equipment. The likelihood of increasing these facilities by firms was considered good by these types of firms. Only one chain operator had bagging and boxing equipment, and expansion of this service by chains was not anticipated. In summary, the absence of equipment for commodity preparation among firms, particularly chain organizations, indicates that such functions will be performed near the point of production in the future. Although some wholesalers expect to perform certain services for customers in the future, the feasibility of such activity was a matter to be determined. Other Chain organizations provided merchandising and advertising services for their integrated units. Only 43 per cent of the earlot receivers and 16 per cent of the jobbers were performing such services for their customers. Chains employed full-time merchandising men to work with retail outlets; only three earlot receivers and none of the jobbers interviewed had full-time men employed to assist retail customers with merchandising or other marketing tasks. Independent wholesalers were in agreement that more assistance might be provided customers in the area of marketing, although objectives and procedures were not clearly defined. All chains furnished market information to their retail outlets, while only one each of carlot receivers and jobbers provided such service to customers. All brokers furnished market information to their clients, in addition to making sales and purchases for them. VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 9 Credit was furnished to customers by most earlot receivers and jobbers on a weekly and/or monthly basis (Appendix Table 10). Jobbers were generally more flexible in the time allowed customers for payment than were the larger receivers. Need for assistance by firms in determining credit policies was indicated. This would include help in determining types, costs, and procedures to be followed in handling customer accounts. PROCUREMENT PRACTICES Commodities Handled A total of 39 commodities was handled by wholesale firms, including three types of cabbages, waxed and unwaxed sweet potatoes, and vine-ripe and green mature tomatoes (Table 1). A total of 1,459 commodity reports3 was obtained from dealers including 138 chains, 58 brokers, 481 carlot receivers, and 782 jobbers. Commodity reports were obtained directly from managers and company records along with types of packages received, selling agencies, location of purchases, and transportation used in procurement. Chain organizations generally carried a full line of produce throughout the year. Jobbers, although less diversified than chains, maintained a more complete line of vegetables than did carlot receivers. Items produced locally such as collards, green onions, mustard greens, and turnip greens were carried in inventory by most small jobbers but not by large receivers or brokers. Seasonality of purchases varied considerably by commodity and type of wholesaler (Appendix Table 11). Lettuce and celery were handled by almost all firms throughout the year. Rutabagas, strawberries, and several other items were stocked only on a seasonal basis. Seasonality of purchase was related to location and number of states from which supplies were drawn. Products inventoried the year round were drawn from a wide geographical area. Mature green tomatoes, once an important truck crop produced in Alabama and other states in the Southeast, were found stocked by only 25 per cent of the firms interSCommodity Report-Unit of comparison. (Example-one firm reporting one commodity represented one commodity report, 2 firms reporting 10 commodities represented 20 commodity reports, etc.). 0 TABLE 1. COMMODITIES HANDLED BY WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 nmmnrlif-v Chain Stores Asparagus--------------Snap beans----------------------Broccoli-------------------------Cabbage_________________________ Chinese cabbage------------------Red Brokers 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 66.7 83.8 66.7 66.7 38.8 33.3 66.7 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 66.7 66.7 33.3 66.7 66.7 Type of firm Carlot receivers 7 17 7 18 3 9 12 18 18 8 16 15 14 9 2 19 7 16 5 15 16 16 16 16 10 80.4 73.9 80.4 78.8 13.0 39.1 52.2 78.3 78.3 34.8 69.6 65.2 60.9 39.1 8.7 82.6 30.4 69.6 21.7 65.2 69.6 69.6 69.6 43.5 jobbers 6 26 4 80 3 8 18 27 29 24 27 26 23 16 1 27 6 25 17 26 26 26 25 28 19 18.8 81.2 12.5 98.8 9.4 25.0 56.2 84.4 90.6 75.0 84.4 81.2 71.9 50.0 3.1 84.4 18.8 78.1 53.1 81.2 81.2 81.2 78.1 87.5 59.4 All firms Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent 4 4 4 4 2 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 _ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 .0 100.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 19 48 17 54 9 21 36 51 53 37 49 47 42 30 4 52 16 46 27 46 48 48 46 50 35 30.6 77.4 27.4 87.1 14.5 33.9 58.1 82.3 85.5 59.7 79.0 75.8 67.7 48.4 6.5 83.9 25.8 74.2 43.5 74.2 77.4 77.4 74.2 80.6 56.5 II 3r cabbage Cauliflower Cantaloupes CeleryCollards Corn __ Cucumbers Eggplant Endive _-------Kale ----------Head Leaf Lima w 0 7r 3r n c -I e lettuce lettuce --- beans --- __ ----- Mustard greens Okra ----------Green 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 m m X Peaches_________ Field peas------- onions ---- z I On Sweet pepper---Hot pepper ------ (continued) ZI m m .I m TABLE 1 (Continued). COMMODITIES HANDLED BY WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959, All firms 0 A C ('.nmmnIi %--Umuiiii1UL~Y Chain Stores Type of firm Carlot receivers Jobbers Brokers m Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent New potatoes________________________________________ Pumpkins -------Radishes____________________________ _ __ _ 4 4 4 100.0 1 33.8 2 66.7 100.0 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 2 66.7 4 1 33.3 8-------------------------75.0 4 100.0 1 33.3 z 1I Rutabagas Spinach 19 4 15 17 9 16 82.6 17.4 31 7 96.9 21.9 55 17 88.7 27.4 65.2 73.9 39.1 69.6 25 27 14 27 78.1 84.4 43.8 84.4 46 50 27 38 74.2 80.6 43.5 61.3 Summer squash ------------------- Winter squash_____________________ Strawberries_______________________ Waxed sweetpotatoes_______________ Unwaxed sweetpotatoes_____________ Turnips __________________________ Red and pink 3 3 3 4 4 4 75.0 75.0 100.0 75.0 1 1 3 2 1 2 33.3 33.3 100.0 66.7 33.3 66.7 7 12 15 17 12 20 30.4 52.2 65.2 73.9 52.2 87.0 11 18 19 28 23 30 34.4 56.2 59.4 87.5 71.9 93.8 22 34 40 51 40 56 35.5 54.8 64.5 82.3 64.5 90.3 tomatoes--------------------- 100.0 100.0 W atermelons---------------------I/ KVra~l111V--V------ Green tomatoes____________________ 0 4 + .0 100.0 avv~v 0 0 v .0 .0 "v 6 3 26.1 13.0 10 19 31.2 59.4 16 26 25.8 41.9 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION viewed. None of the chains reportedly carried them in inventory. The demand shift to vine-ripened tomatoes reportedly has resulted in added problems to, wholesalers relative to quality maintenance of this important commodity. The 20 items found to, be of major importance to firms studied, on the basis of ranked volumes, are listed in Appendix Table 12. Commodities of primary importance to the most firms included cabbage, head lettuce, snap beans, vine-ripened tomatoes, celery, new potatoes, and summer squash. Most of the major commodities handled by firms can be produced in Alabama, and all of them can be produced in the Southern Region. Profitableness, however, would have to be related to cost and other factors to determine feasibility. Agencies In order of importance, firms obtained vegetables through broker-receivers, growers, shipper-growers, farmers' markets, jobbers, and repackers (Table 2). Although broker-receivers were the main source of fresh vegetables for chains, carlot receivers, jobbers, shipper-growers, and growers were also important sources. Farmers' markets were found to be of some importance to jobbers and carlot receivers as procurement agencies but were of no importance as supply sources for chain operators or brokers. Implications extend to market planning and development in that volume handled through small concentration points in the future will likely diminish. Therefore, recovery of expenditures for small concentration markets for this reason will be made difficult. Facts indicate the importance of direct marketing of vegeTABLE 2. AGENCIES THROUGH WHICH PURCHASES OF VEGETABLES WERE MADE BY WHOLESALE FIRMS FOR 1,459 COMMODITY REPORTS, ALABAMA, 1959 Selling agency Chain stores Per cent 55.0 1.0 0.0 38.0 6.0 0.0 100.0 Type of buyer Brokers Carlot receivers Per cent 34.0 1.0 0.0 14.0 51.0 0.0 100.0 Per cent 40.0 1.0 ' Jobbers Per cent 56.0 2.0 27.0 4.0 11.0 100.0 Broker-receiver Repacker Jobber Grower Shipper-grower Farmers' market-------Total - --SLess 24.0 31.0 4.0 100.0 than 0.5 per cent. VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 13 tables from growers to, wholesalers or from producer-assembly operators directly to wholesalers. Absence of intermediaries in marketing channels places added responsibilities on producers and first handlers for quality maintenance of produce ultimately consumed. Location of Supply The 62 firms studied reported procurement of vegetables in 36 states and 3 foreign countries (Appendix Table 13). The state of origin does not necessarily reflect origin of production, but merely the point of purchase for the firms reporting. Chains and carlot receivers, while drawing heavily on Alabama for supplies, also established contact in more distant supply areas of the nation. Florida, California, Texas, and North Carolina were important procurement areas. The more limited range was evident among jobbers in the procurement of supplies. Their reports indicated that 85 per cent of purchases originated in Alabama with Florida and Georgia following in order of importance. The number of states from which vegetables were drawn was related to the specific commodity involved (Appendix Table 14). Lima beans, mustard greens, field peas; and watermelons were drawn from only 6 states each; new potatoes, tomatoes, and cabbage were drawn from 17 to 20 states. For the 20 major commodities handled by firms, the range in number of states of origin during the year was from 6 to 20. Location of quality produce reportedly was the most important factor in determining specific areas of procurement. Wholesale dealers indicated that they wanted the best quality of vegetables available at competitive prices, but they did not want "cheap produce" at any price. Other factors of importance included availability, price, and pack (Appendix Tables 15 and 16). Method of Purchase Information was obtained from wholesalers regarding relative importance of consignment, contract, F.O.B. shipping point, and F.O.B. delivery point in the purchasing of major commodities. Chains and brokers reportedly made no purchases of major commodities either by consignment or contract. Commodity reports revealed that bases of purchase were almost evenly divided between an F.O.B. shipping point and F.O.B. delivery point. 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Commodity reports of both carlot receivers and jobbers indicated that purchases of major commodities were made primarily on an F.O.B. shipping point basis. Consignment arrangements were made only occasionally by these types of firms. Only one carlot receiver had one contract to purchase a major commodity. None of the major commodities bought by jobbers were obtained on a contractual basis. Containers Preferred Containers represent an important part of marketing costs for most vegetables. Also, they contribute to the acceptance by the trade of produce from different locations. Thirty-two of 85 firms reporting snap beans to be a major commodity preferred to receive them in bushel hampers. Thirty-five of the 89 firms reporting cabbage as a major commodity preferred 50-pound mesh bags, while the remainder preferred crates. All 39 reports received from firms, where head lettuce was a major commodity, preferred fiberboard vacuum-cooled packages. Fifteen of 19 reports on new potatoes showed preferences for 50-pound sacks, while three preferred 100-pound sacks and one preferred to receive in bulk. The 20-pound fiberboard box was listed as a preference 25 times out of 33 reports on red and pink tomatoes. The remainder of the answers relating to container preferences for tomatoes was divided among 40-pound fiberboard box, 60-pound wirebound crate, and 60-pound fiberboard box. Only one firm desired to receive in bulk (Appendix Table 17). Vegetable buyers were more concerned about types of containers being used for some commodities than for others. Several preferred containers were named for green-ripe tomatoes, collards, cucumbers, lima beans, rutabagas, turnips, and strawberries. Container preferences of wholesalers were influenced by the disposition of products, including facilities for handling. Aid in quality maintenance, using that standard to the trade, ease of handling, and supplying customer demand were major factors underlying preferences for major commodity reports obtained (Appendix Table 18). Price discounting was reported where a variety of sizes and types of containers was used. Inferior and non-standardized containers for specific vegetables reportedly were costly in terms of quality loss, cost of repacking, and price discounting. The need for giving more attention to the accept- VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 15 ability and cost of containers used in marketing of the most perishable items was emphasized by produce managers. Varieties Preferred Variety types preferred for selected commodities were reported as follows: Snap beans - Kentucky Wonder Cabbage - Flat Dutch Celery - Pascal Lettuce - Iceberg type Field peas - Purple Hull Squash - Yellow Crookneck Firm managers generally showed less concern about varieties of vegetables received than about containers preferred. Although they were often at a loss to name preferred varieties of specific commodities, many managers could suggest types of commodities demanded by the trade. Of the 254 major commodity reports received from firms, 109 indicated no specific variety preferences (Appendix Table 19). This included 66 per cent of cabbage reports, 42 per cent of celery reports, 59 per cent of lettuce reports, 75 per cent of red and pink tomato reports, and 53 per cent of reports on new potatoes. Reasons for selecting variety-types where indicated were based primarily on trade demand and ability of product to maintain quality. PROBLEM AREAS Firm managers were asked to identify important problems confronting them. Areas covered included problems associated with customer demand, systems of supply, and internal operations. Overlapping ideas among managers was to be expected in obtaining information relative to obstacles hindering market improvement. 1. Expanding or at least maintaining sales volume was of primary concern to many small wholesalers. Apprehensions expressed appeared well grounded in view of sales trends and structural adjustments occurring as indicated. The intensity of the problem for firms appeared related to the amount of business done with retailers. Where trade with chains or 6ther wholesalers was significant, the problem of decreased sales was less severe. 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 2. Lack of facilities for handling and servicing customers and products was noted among some wholesale firms. This related to machinery and equipment, cooling and warehouse space, and facilities for providing credit and business services. In general, labor-saving devices were absent in the firms studied. Hand methods were employed extensively. 3. The presence of non-graded produce in marketing channels was the most important supply problem listed by firm managers. Fifty-four firms, or 87 per cent, including all chains and brokers, 20 carlot receivers, and 27 jobbers reported this to be a major barrier to obtaining adequate supplies of fresh vegetables, particularly from nearby producing areas. 4. Thirty-seven firm managers, or about 60 per cent, reported inadequate packaging to be an important barrier to efficient procurement. Large handlers including chains, brokers, carlot receivers, and some jobbers, were particularly concerned with this situation. Too little consideration was believed given this factor presently by producers and/or first handlers. Poor packaging was reported as an important cause of loss among major commodity reports analyzed. Importance of packaging was emphasized by managers who reported this to have a substantial influence in determining their preferred areas of purchase. The common use of the market basket for marketing tomatoes in Alabama was cited often as evidence of poor choice in the selection of containers by local sellers. 5. Twenty-six firm managers, or 42 per cent, reported that the quality of locally grown produce was inferior to that coming from other areas. Jobbers, somewhat dependent on local produce, were especially concerned about this situation. "Topping" of packages with good produce, while permitting a less desirable quality to remain underneath, was a common complaint. Dependence upon a few reputable growers for supplies or resorting to inspection of individual lots, a costly process, was the result. 6. Lack of dependability in delivery of produce was cited as a barrier to local market improvement. Also, a general lack of growers' appreciation of marketing problems was felt to exist. 7. Peddling and dumping of produce by growers in local markets was considered detrimental to the trade. Market gluts, low market prices, and poor quality were reported to result from this action. VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 17 8. Facilities for handling produce were considered lacking by 21 firm managers, including 2 chains, 11 carlot receivers, and 8 jobbers. Adequate facilities for the concentration of products, and of providing needed services, were considered necessary to overcome many other obstacles mentioned. It should be noted however that large buyers were not using farmers' markets as procurement agencies even when available. 9. Loss among major commodities handled resulted primarily from price changes or the inability to move produce and to improper handling practices such as poor packaging, poor quality related to overmaturity, and delays in transit (Appendix Table 20). Improper handling was related to the lack of cooling facilities at different levels of marketing and to poor transportation facilities at the producer level. Earlier interviews made with truck farmers indicate the lack of transportation facilities among growers. 4 5 Regarding pricing, a major complaint was the inability to obtain accurate information in some procurement areas. 10. Obtaining of volume requirements was a major concern among buyers. Of the major commodity reports received, availability in required volumes was reported 58 per cent of the time as the primary factor in determining preferred areas of procurement. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary objective of this study was to determine characteristics, practices, and problems of wholesale produce firms in Alabama to provide a basis for understanding changing conditions and production and marketing adjustments needed in the area. Data for the study were obtained through personal interviews in 1959 with 62 firms throughout the State. Businesses contacted included 3 brokers, 4 chain store representatives, 23 carlot receivers, and 32 jobbers. Most of the fresh produce consumed within the State is channeled through one or more of these firms. Legal structures of firms included 24 single proprietorships, 20 partnerships, and 18 corporations. Three of the chains and 12 of the carlot receivers were corporations while only 2 of the 32 jobbers had corporate structures. Kern, E. E., "Farm Marketing of Truck Crops in Baldwin County," Circular 180, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, June 1959, p. 6. 5 , "Farm Marketing of Truck Crops in Houston County," Circular 182, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, June 1959, p. 6. 4 -... 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Gross sales of carlot receivers averaged $1,116,460 in 1954 and $1,271,733 in 1958. Jobbers' sales during the same two periods were $370,258 and $372,654, respectively. After removing the effects of inflation from dollar sales, many firms showed declining sales' trends. About 50 per cent of the sales' volume of carlot receivers and 70 per cent of that of jobbers was to retailers, other than chains. Firms received 39 different vegetables from 36 states and 3 foreign countries. In order of importance, Alabama, Florida, California, Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina were the leading sources of supply. Availability, price, and pack were major factors underlying choices of preferred areas of procurement. "No sale" or price change, weather variability, improper holding temperatures, over maturity, and improper packaging were major factors contributing to product loss among major items received. Procurement agencies, in order of importance, included brokerreceivers, growers, shipper-growers, farmers' markets, and jobbers. Although farmers' markets were of some importance to jobbers and carlot receivers, they were of no importance to chains or brokers as procurement agencies. Seasonality of purchase was more pronounced among jobbers and carlot receivers than among chains interviewed. F.O.B. shipping point and delivery point were the primary methods of purchasing commodities. Chains and brokers reportedly received no products through consignment or contractural arrangements, while such arrangements were made only occasionally by carlot receivers or jobbers. Physical facilities were considered inadequate in some cases by firms reporting. Inadequacy related particularly to warehouse, cooling room, and frozen food storage areas. In addition, very few modern labor-saving devices, such as unloading conveyors and forklift trucks were being used by firms. Problem areas cited by firms related to adjustments needed resulting from business changes affecting competitive efficiency, operating problems relating to services that should be performed for customers, and production and market adjustments needed to be followed by producers and others who service wholesalers. Several implications can be derived for this study. These include: 1. Carlot receivers and jobbers must find ways to accomodate the present market structure or continue to decline in impor- VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 19 tance. Increased activities of chain outlets have been responsible for drastic alteration in procurement patterns and procedures. Increased demands for product processing, mass distribution of services and products, and specialized assistance in marketing have placed the necessity for change upon small wholesalers. Alternatives seem to lie in the area of horizontal and/or vertical integration to achieve the advantages of specialization of resources where needed. Cooperative and voluntary contractural arrangements with firms at various' levels of marketing, including farm firms, are a distinct possibility. 2. Independent wholesalers expressed interest in diversification of products, services, and customers under present organizational arrangements. This would include providing special processing functions; business assistance to customers such as merchandising, price information, and credit; in addition to serving chains and others on a specified basis. The manner and extent to which firms might proceed along these lines profitably provide a basis for investigation. The need for assistance in analyzing alternative procedures and costs was indicated. Thus, agencies with appropriate facilities for serving the vegetable industry at this level of marketing in the future have opportunities for service. 3. Chain stores are increasingly making direct purchases of commodities on a specification basis from large growers and shippers who can provide supplies to meet trade requirements. Thus, possibilities exist for certain growers who can meet rigid demand requirements with respect to quality, volume, and pack to gain a larger proportion of the market. Contract sales may provide participants an opportunity for sharing risks in direct marketing. More suitable arrangements between producers and distributors of fresh produce need be developed. 4. Based on buyer attitudes found in this study, future marketing opportunities are extremely limited for small growers operating in a sporadic manner. Cooperative marketing might be the appropriate procedure by which small growers could supply large buyers on a specification basis; however, cooperatives do not guarantee success in marketing, and wisdom would need to be exercised in such ventures. 5. Based on buyer procurement practices, the need for expanding market facilities such as small farmers' markets, tried in the past in Alabama, cannot be substantiated. A good produce 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION market should permit close communication of buyers and sellers and have adequate facilities for handling large quantities.of produce in a short period of time. Prices paid should represent supply-demand conditions in the entire market area. In the absence of other economic factors, the construction of buildings, loading platforms, and sheds do not necessarily meet the test of a competitive market. 6. Continual education among market participants regarding improving the condition of produce sold, including grading and packing, would be supported by the firms interviewed. Investigation of regulatory activity desirable to accomplish this was considered a possibility. APPENDIX APPENDIX TABLE 1. NUMBER OF WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS IN ALABAMA BY TYPE, 1959 Type of firm Chain stores Brokers Carlot receivers Jobbers Total -- Firms reporting Number Per cent 4 6.5 3 4.8 23 37.1 32 51.6 62 100.0 APPENDIX TABLE 2. LEGAL STRUCTURES FIRMS, ALABAMA, OF WHOLESALE VEGETABLE 1959 Total Number 4 3 23 32 62 100.0 Type of firm Single proprietor Number 0 2 5 17 24 38.7 Legal structure Partnership Corporation Number 1 0 6 13 20 32.3 Number 3 1 12 2 18 29.0 Chain stores Brokers Carlot receivers Jobbers Total Per cent VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT APPENDIX TABLE 3. OPERATION UNDER PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 21 2 STRUCTURES, Years of operation Chain stores No. Pct. 1 25.0 BrokersCarlot No. 2 0 Type of firm Jobbers Pct. 66.7 5 to 9.9-------------------- 0 .0 10 to 14.9 ---------------0 .0 15 to 19.9--------- 0 .0 20 to 24.9---------------- 0 .0 25 and over-----------3 75.0 Total 4 100.0 APPENDIX TABLE 4. Less than 5------------- 1 33.3 .0 receiver No. Pct. 3 13.0 2 8.7 9 39.2 All firms No. 7 5 9 Pct. No. 22.0 13 15.6 8 28.1 18 Pct. 21.0 12.9 28.9 ------------1954 0 0 0 3 .0 .0 .0 100.0 0 4 5 23 .0 17.4 21.7 100.0 4 2 5 32 12.5 6.2 15.6 100.0 4 6 13 62 6.5 9.7 21.0 100.0 GROSS SALES OF VEGETABLES BY WHOLESALE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1954 AND 1958 1958 Carlot Jobbers All firms receivers Jobbers All firms Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Less than $250,000----------12.5 42.1 28.6 11.8 53.8 37.2 250,000 to 499,999------------ 31.2 36.8 34.2 17.6 23.1 20.9 500,000 to 999,999----------12.5 15.8 14.3 23.5 15.4 18.6 1,000,000 and over -------- 43.8 _ 5.3 22.9 47.1 7.7 23.3 Total--------------------------100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number Number Number Number Number Number Firms reporting ---------------- 16 19 35 17 26 43 receivers APPENDIX TABLE 5. CHANGES IN GROSS SALES BETWEEN 1954 AND CARLOT RECEIVERS AND JOBBERS REPORTING, ALABAMA BOTH IN ACTUAL AND CONSTANT DOLLAR Gross sales Carlot AMOUNTS) (EXPRESSED 1958 AMONG Type of firm Direction of change Carlot receivers Per cent 75.0 12.5 12.5 Jobbers Per cent 57.9 31.6 10.5 All firms Per cent 65.7 22.9 11.4 Current 1958 Dollars: Increased----------------------Decreased---------------------No change ------ _--------------- Total---------------------- -Constant 1954 Dollars: Increased ---------------------Decreased---------------------No change---------------------- 100.0 56.2 43.8 .0 100.0 100.0 57.9 42.1 .0 100.0 100.0 57.1 42.9 .0 100.0 Total------ _--------------------------- 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 22 APPENDIX TABLE 6. ALABAA AGRICULTURLEPIMN PERCENTAGE OF VEGETABLE SALES BY WHOLESALE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 ST IO TYPE OF CUSTOMER, Volume of sales Type of customer Carlot receivers Per cent 48.0 14.0 30.4 7.6 100.0 Jobbers Per cent 70.6 .3.9 7.8 Brokers Per cent 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 Retailers____ Chain..stores- Wholesalers- Others______ Total ___ 17.7 100.0 APPENDIX TABLE 7. TREND IN VEGETABLE SALES BY CARLOT RECEIVERS AND JOBBERS REPORTING BY TYPE OF CUSTOMER, ALABAMA, 1959 Type of customer Direction of trend Retailers Whole- Others Total salers Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 42.0 5.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 Chains Carlot receivers: Increasing__________________ Decreasing__________________ 63.0 0.0 No change -----------------53.0 87.0 Total ______________________________________ 100.0 100.0 Jobbers: Increasing____________________________.0 67.0 Decreasing__________________ 31.0 0.0 No 50.0 50.0 100.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.0 17.0 50.0 100.0 41.0 22.0 87.0 100.0 39.0 18.0 43.0 100.0 change ------------------ 38.0 100.0 33.0 100.0 53.0 100.0 Total.------------------- APPENDIX TABLE 8. WAREHOUSE SPACE AVAILABLE TO WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Square feet of floor space None Less than 5,000 Chain stores Firms reporting Carlot receivers Jobbers 5.000 to and over- 20,000 19,999-- Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.1 0 0.0 5 21.7 19 59.4 1 25.0 10 43.5 12 37.5 3 75.0 8 34.8 0 0.0 4 100.0 23 100.0 32 100.0 Total V------- VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 23 VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT APPENDIX TABLE 9. COOLING SPACE AVAILABLE TO WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 2 Square feet of floor space Chain stores Type of firm Carlot receivers 1 8 8 4.3 34.8 34.8 26.1 jobbers 4 20 1 Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent 0.0 None___________________________0______ 25.0 1 Less than 1,000_________________ 50.0 2 1,000 to 4,999___________________ 25.0 1 5,000 and over 4 100.0 Total 6 ------------------ 7 12.5 62.5 21.9 3.1 23 100.0 32 100.0 APPENDIX TABLE 10. TERMS OF CREDIT FURNISHED BY CARLOT JOBBERS TO CUSTOMERS, ALABAMA, 1959 RECEIVERS AND Type of firm Credit terms Carlot receivers jobhers Number 25 4 27 3 32 All firms Number Bi-weekly-------Weekly---------Ticket-to-ticket--Firms in study- Number 89 6 48 6 55 M onthly--------- 14 2 21 3 23 APPENDIX TABLE 11. PURCHASE OF COMMODITIES BY SEASONS, 62 WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Type of firm Chain stores Brokers Carlot receivers jobbers llAl JMAIlSODSeas. 7 17 7 18 3 9 Commodity All JFM AMJ JAS OND Seas. IFM AMJ ea.Seas. Asparagus Snap beans Broccoli Cabbage_ Chinese cabbage Red cabbage Cauliflower Cantaloupes -- Celery-----------Collards -------- --Corn --------- -- - -Cucumbers--------E ggp lant----------Endive--------- --K ale -- - -- - - - - - - - - Head Leaf lettuce-------Lima beans--------- lettuce-------. 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 4 2 .3 4 4 2 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 0 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 0 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 4 4 2 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 4 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 4 2 4 4 4 2. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 11 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 Seasons of purchases OND A 1 IM M TiSeas. JFM JAS ASON Number of firms 1 2 5 7 2 4 1 1 13 15 13 13 2 2 6 6 4 6 1 2 18 18 18 18 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 9 8 8 8 2 2 11 11 7 12 0 2 5 17 16 3 2 2 18 17 17 17 1 1 7 6 4 8 2 2 11 15 12 11 1 2 12 15 12 11 1 1 12 14 12 11 2 2 7 9 8 7 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 19 19 19 19 0 1 6 7 6 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 3 7 16 15 4 3 15 13 5 4 4 5 25 4 29 3 8 2 26 1 29 3 8 1 25 1 28 3 8 3 25 4 29 3 8 6 26 4 30 3 8 12 18 18 8 16 15 14 9 2 19 7 18 6 28 23 19 25 21 15 1 27 5 4 Mustard greens-----O kra -------------- .3 ------------ ------------------ 16 8 24 2510 25 5 13 10 7 16 17 15 6 26 24 5 26 (continued) 15 27 29 10 27 25 22 15 0 26 4 12 27 27 9 26 25 22 15 0 26 5 18 4 28 23 16 25 21 15 1 27 4 18 27 29 24 27 26 23 16 1 27 6 - m m z -I z 0 APPENDIX TABLE 11 (Continued). PURCHASE OF COMMODITIES BY SEASONS, 62 WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Type of firm Chain stores Commodity All JFM AMI JAS OND Seas. JFM AMI 4 Creen onions________________ 4 4 _------- 1 Peaches 2 4 Field peas 4 Sweet pepper_______________ 3 4 .____---3 Hot pepper 4 New potatoes___________ -2 0 0 Pumpkins 4 Radishes_____________________ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 1 3 3 1 3 4 3 m 7v Brokers Carlot receivers jobbers 0 70 m in -------------- 0 -------------------- - -------------------2 0 4 2 3 4 4 Rutabagas Spinach -----------Summer 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 Seasons of purchases JAS OND All JFMAMJJAS OND All AS OND All Seas. Seas. Seas. Number of firms 2 15151513162326222226 2 2 23 26 3 26 14 3 16 1 0 2 3 14 2 24 24 3 25 4 16 15 4 16 7 1 0 1 28 28 28 28 16 16 16 28 2 1 2 16 16 19 10 13 19 18 14 7 10 9 8 2 0 2 5 31 12 6 19 15 30 14 0 0 1 13 19 4 6 7 4 7 7 1 1 4 2 2 1 0 2 1 2 15151515152324242325 17 17 26 7 5 27 27 2 2 2 17 7 5 1 0 1 7 6 6 8 9 13 101013 14 z -I Winter squasL_______ Strawberries________ Waxed sweetpotatoes_ Unwaxed sweetpotatoes______ Turnips____________ Red and pink tomatoes__________ Creen tomatoes______ Watermelons squash ------4 4 4 2 3 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 0 4 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 13 1515 1216 2027 2720 27 1 0 3 4 4 4 0 4 3 0 3 4 4 4 0 0 3 3 3 4 4 4 0 4 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 2 0 0 5 6 15 4 11 14 5 1 13 8 2 15 8 12 15 9 17 19 5 21 15 63 1 15 11 0 17 11 29 19 4 4 4 0 14 1513 1517 2723 2525 28 10 8 3 10 12 20 14 11 21 23, IU' ---------0 20 2019 1920 2929 2929 30 6 6 5 6 6 9 7 8 8 10 1 3 3 1 3 10 2626 8 29 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 12. MAJOR COMMODITIES HANDLED BY WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Commodity C abbage----------------8-------------Head lettuce------------------------Snap beans--------------------------Tomatoes (red and pink)--Celery-----------------New potatoes------------ Occurrences Commodity Occurrences Number 39 39 35 33 19 19 Number C orn - - - - - - - Sweet pepper-5 Tomatoes (green)-4 Collards----------------Cucum bers--------------Lima 6 3 3 3 Summer squash---------Field peas--------------Sweetpotatoes----------- beans -------------- 11 9 9 Rutabagas---------------. Turnips-----------------Strawberries-------------- 3 3 2 Okra ------------------1 7' Waterm elons ------------- 2 Not including stored potatoes. VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 27 VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT APPENDIX TABLE 18. SOURCES OF VEGETABLE SUPPLIES, VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 WHOLESALE 2 State Chain store Times reported by firms Carlot s receivers Jobbers firms All Number Number Number Number Number 668 1,040 255 19 98 ----Alabama 178 515 254 71 17 Florida--------------------------------215 53 17 109 86 California----------195 90 98 2 5 Georgia-----------------------------178 40 104 10 24 Texas----------------------------------141 61 44 2 34 North Carolina----------------8--------------95 30 23 19 23 Colorado-------------------------------15 80 51 5 9 M ichigan-------------------------------2866 6 384 Arizona------------------------13 66 28 14 11 Louisiana------------------------------68 27 19 2 15 South Carolina-------------------------------24 58 16 6 12 M ississippi----------------------------------------44 18 24 5 2 Tennessee--------------------41 18 16 11 1 Illin ois------------------------------------89 9 0 25 5 W isconsin ---------------------------------------2 81 25 8 1 V irginia -------------------------------24 11 11 0 2 M issouri---------------------24 5 1 15 Canada-----------------8--------28 0 0 8------------------------20 -------Ohio 112819 3 8--------------------------------New Y ork 18 7 0 8 8-------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- -Cuba 14 8 9 0 2 Mexico- ----------------------2 9 5 02 Indiana-----------------------6 8 8 0 0 New Jersey--------------------4 8 0 1 0 A rkansas-------------------- --4 0 2 1 1 K entucky------------------- --1 4 1 1 1 New M exico-------------------8 8 0 0 0 Minnesota----------------- ---8 8 0 0 0 Pennsylvania------------------8 1 1 0 1 W ashington -------------------2 0 2 0 0 Idaho ----------------------- -2 0 2 0 0 Maryland---------------------1 0 0 1 0 Iowa--------- ----------------1 0 1 0 0 Montana-------------------- --1 0 0 0 1 North Dakota------------------1 0 0 0 1 Nebraska ---------------------1 1 0 0 0 Oregon ---------------------- -1 0 0 0 1 South Dakota------------------1 1 0 0 0 W est Virginia------------------ 28 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 14. NUMBER OF STATES INVOLVED IN PROCUREMENTIOF COMMODITIES, WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Type of firm Chain Brokers Carlot oAll Stores receiversJ firms Number Number Number Number Number Asp aragus----------------------------------------5 3 9 3 11 5 6 9 8 11 Snap beans----------------------------------Broccoli-----------6 4 7 5 9 Cabbage----------------------------------------11 3 15 11 18 Chinese cabbage------------------------------7 2 5 4 10 Red cabbage------------------------------ - 11 1 11 6 15 Cauliflow er------------------------------9 3 10 7 14 Cantaloupes---------------------------7 4 10 7 11 Celery --------- -------- --------- ------------4 4 7 6 9 Collards-------------------------------1 2 4 6 7 C orn -------- ---------------------------9 7 11 9 15 Cucum ber s-------------------------------. 7 6 10 9 15 16 12 9 4 4 Eggplant----------------------Endive-------------------------------5 4 11 8 15 Ka le ------- -- ------- -- ------- ------- -- -0 1 8 3 6 H ead lettuce--------------------------------3 7 11 7 12 L eaf lettuce--- ------------------------ -----3 1 9 2 9 Lim a beans---------------------------------5 1 5 6 6 Mustard greens--------------------------1 1 6 2 6 O kr a -----------------------------------------------6 2 7 5 7 G reen onions-------------------------------------8 4 12 11 14 Peaches-------------------- --10 7 13 9 15 Field peas ---------------------3 5 4 6 Sweet pepper-------------------5 6 13 11 15 H ot pepper-------------------3 2 8 7 9 New potatoes------------------6 2 8 13 20 Pumpkins ----------------- ----7 2 4 3 9 Radishes----------------------10 2 12 11 16 Rutabagas----------------- ---4 3 8 9 12 Spinach-------------------- --4 1 9 6 11 Summer squash----------------5 5 7 10 10 Winter squash-----------------5 1 8 5 10 Commodity 4 Strawberries ------------------- 6 1 6 5 8 Waxed sweetpotatoes------------ 3 5 11 5 11 Unwaxed sweetpotatoes---------Turnips-------------------- --Red and pink tomatoes----------- 4 5 9 3 1 2 11 6 15 5 9 12 12 10 17 Green tomatoes----------------- W atermelons-------------------- 0 2 0 0 11 2 7 6 12 _6 Fr 0 m rI m 0 m APPENDIX TABLE 15. FACTORS INFLUENCING PROCUREMENT AREA FOR 254 REPORTS ON MATOR COMMODITIES FOR WHOLESALE VEGETABLE DEALERS IN ALABAMA, 1959 Factors reported z -I Type of firm Chain ---Brokers-------Carlot receiversjobbers-------- stores Total------- Avail- AdverPack Tas te Total ability tising Varieties Prices desired Service Quality ToratinsOh reot Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 5 0 0 4 5 0 19 0 6 19 5 5 0 0 5 0 5 00 10 63 5 1 24 10 0 53 6 4 87 4 104 73 0 1 2 37 8 1 138 146 10 2 12 66 19 181 11 254 8 W O APPENDIX TABLE 16. FACTORS INFLUENCING PROCUREMENT FOR 254 REPORTS ON MAJOR COMMODITIES FOR WHOLESALE DEALERS IN ALABAMA BY COMMODITIES, 1959' Commodity Factors reported AvailAdver- Varieties Prices Pack STotal ability tising desiredS c l ranr Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 22 18 9 3 5 3 19 2 4 6 10 . 2 Snap beans-----------------------Cabbage---------------------Celery------------------Collards---------------------Corn-----------------------------Cucumbers--8------------------Head lettuce_________________________________ Lima beans------------------Okra-------- -------------- --------------------------Field peas -------------------------------------New potatoes_____________________ Rutabagas---------------------Summer Sweet 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 11 5 0 0 0 11 0 2 2 0 3 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 23 31 17 2 4 1 31 2 3 6 12 2 7 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 35 39 19 3 6 3 39 3 a 7 9 19 11 5 pepper --------------.------- 0 0 0 0 8 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .., 1 7 2 0 3n 2 9 3 33 4 squash-------------------- Strawberries______________________ 1 Sweetpotatoes_______________7_____10______7 Turnips 3 Tomatoes (red and Tomatoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (green) ------------------ pink) ------------ 1 2 1 11 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 26 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 m' 19 22 W atermelons______________________ Total.-------------_ _________ -- 1 164 0 10 0 2 0 66 0 19 0 12 1 179 0 8 0 11 2 254.I z -I a 0 z VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 31 EGETABLE PROCUREMENT 3 APPENDIX TABLE 17. VEGETABLE CONTAINERS PREFERRED FOR MAJOR COMMODITIES BY WHOLESALE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Container type Container type Commodity Snap beans-- Number Commodity 35 32 2 Number - - - - - Bu. hampers Wirebound crate Bu. boxes-Cabbage -- - - - - - - - - - 50-lb. mesh Crates -- - - - - - - -C elery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FiberboardcartonsWood crates Collards-- - -- - -- - -- - Bunches- - - - - - Bu lk - - - - - - - - - - - - No preference Okra Bu. hampers_ hampers 7 3 3 1 9 1 half-bushel baskets ------ bags 39 35 12-quart baskets-------Field peas Bu. 4 19 2 17 17 7 1 1 5 S acks-- - -- -- - --- -- - - --No preference Sweet pepper-------------Bu. 3 1 1 1 C o rn ---- ---- ---Crates ------ -------- Sacks-- - - - - - - - - Cucumbers-- - - - - - Bu. hampers Wirebound crate Bu. 4 2 100-lb. sacks----------B ulk -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rutabagas 3 50-lb. sacks------ ------ 6 hampers___________. Mkt. baskets-_ New potatoes 50-lb. sacks -___________ Bu. baskets------------__ 2 2 1 19 15 3 1 3 3 11 9 1 1 baskets-------- ----. Lettuce--------------- --Fiberboard carton------Lima beans --------------- C rates -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -preference ---------T urnips .----------------No Bu. hampers------------ 1 Squash ---------------- --1 Bu. hampers-__________1 12 qt. baskets___________ 39 ______Mkt. baskets_ 39 Strawberries 3 16 qt. crates-_---------1 Qt. cups----------- ---1 Sweetpotatoes-___________1 2 1 1 9 3 6 4 1 1 2 Bunches--------------No preference---------20-lb. fiberboard box----40-lb. fiberboard box----- 3 33 Bu. baskets------- ------ C rates----------------- 2 Green 1 25 2 1 1 3 1 60-lb. fiberboard box-____ 60-lb. wirebound tomatoes ------------ Red and pink tomatoes ------ crate -__ Field boxes------------W atermelons-____________- 60-lb. Bu lk -- - - fiberboard box----crate Bu lk -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 ---- - - - - - - - - - 60-lb. wirebound --- No preference---------- 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 18. REASONS FOB CONTAINER PREFERENCES AMONG 254 MAJOR COMMODITY REPORTS, WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Reasons for preferences Chain stores 2 11 0 0 4 BrokersCarlot receivers 0 4 0 1 0 5 Type of firm obr 6 40 15 1 30 36 l im 11 81 30 7 46 64 Number Number Number Number Number Per cent Displays better-----------------Quality maintenance Demand--------------Suitable for repacking--_ Standard to the Easier to handle-------- 1 trade ---Less space requirements__ Costs----------------No reason-------------1 0 3 26 15 5 15 19 4.3 31.8 11.8 2.8 18.1 25.2 0 0 1 2 4 0 6 2 0 19 0 10 2.4 .8 1 87 6 138 7 254 2.8 100.0 Total -------------- VEGETABLE PROCUREMENT 33 EGETABLE PROCUREMENT 19. VARIETIES OF MAJOR VEGETABLES PREFERRED BY WHOLESALE VEGETABLE 3 APPENDIX TABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Variety or type Variety or type Commodity Number Commodity Snap beans---- --___________ __ Lima 35 --27 Fordhook_______________ Kentucky Wonder Pole type- - - - - -1 No preference -- ___-___ W ade --- - -- - - -- - 2 Okra ------------- -Black Valentine No preference 2 3 Clemson SpinelessGreen Velvet--___. Green Pod 39 Cabbage -- - -- - - -- - -- - 4 No preference----Flat Dutch---2 2 Field Dannish-- - -- - - -peas----------CopenhagenMarket__ Purple Hull ________ 1 Round head2 Sweet pepper_ Charleston Wakefield 26 California WonderNo preference beans Number 2 7 2 1 9 -- 9 5 5 19 3 4 2 C elery ---------- - ------- Pascal-- - - - - - - - - Calif. 5270- - - No preference Collards ______________ Georgia__________ No preference Corn -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Golden Bantam Golden No 19 10 1 1 New potatoes_____________ Red Bliss 3 8 2 6 - preference--___ Rutabagas No _____________ Red Lasoda_______ Pontiac Triumph__--_ 10 __ preference------------ Security 3 1 2 Cucumbers----------------Crosby's Long Green-----No preference-----------Lettuce------------- ---- --Iceberg type------------Great Lakes-------- ----No preference-----------Turnip s----------------- --Purple Top -------------No preference-----------Red and pink tomatoes------Rutgers-----------------M arglobe --------------Hom este ad-------------Grotbam ------------- --No preference------------ - - i - -- - - - ---- -- - 3 1 Purple Top_____________ Fordh22 1 No preference----11 -- ----------Yellow Crookneck-10 No preference----1 Strawberries_________ 2 Squash _. 2 39 15 1. 23 Blakemore________ Sweetpotatoes________ All Gold ____________ _. Pocahontas Porto ------- -- 9 6 4 2 2 Rico-------No preference----No 2 3 2 1 33 Green tomatoes_______ Homestead_______ A ce ----------- -- preference____------------ 4 2 Watermelons_________ __ 1 25 Congo - -- ---- Iw4 APPENDIX TABLE 20. REASONS GIVEN FOR Loss AMONG MAJOR COMMODITIES FOR WHOLESALE VEGETABLE FIRMS, ALABAMA, 1959 Reasons reported Commodity No sale Improper Over and handling mtrt price change apck- Equip- paging and poor quality ment failures Delays in transit Diseases Improper Soil and temperaand insects ture fertilization h Total Wahrreports Snap beans Cabbage---Celery-----Collards- - - - -C orn -- - - - - - - - - Cucumbers Head lettuce Lima beans Okra Field Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 35 15 7 7 9 0 6 0 2 1 18 10 3 2 _ 1 17 1 7 1 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 36 5 1 0 2 1 11 1 1 1 2 3 0 3 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 2 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 22 12 8 0 2 1 11 0 1 4 1 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 9 2 0 2 1 6 0 1 1 1 10 2 4 1 4 0 10 2 1 63 39 19 3 6 3 39 3 7 9 5 6 2 6 2 6 2 5 3 19 1 0 124 C C Sweet pepper---------New potatoes---------Rutabagas------------Summer peas ------------- 5 19 3 11 2 9 3 33 4 Strawberries___________ Sweetpotatoes__________ Turnips-----------Watermelons Total -Tomatoes (red and pink) gen_______ squash-_______- x m in mte --- z 0 --- --- - 53 62 2 254