_,..»;:i‘f»* - Marketing Texas ' Green-Wrap Tomatoes May I957 Bulls-fin 26/ I TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS SUMMARY This report summarizes a study of production and distribution in the Texas green-wrap tomato industry during 1951-56, phases 0f handling in marketing, losses of tomatoes in the marketing and cost and marketing margins. Texas green-wrap tomatoes are produced prin- cipally in the early and late spring and fall sea- sons in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, East Texas and the High Plains. They are distributed main- ply in the West North Central, East North Central and Middle Atlantic States. The farmer determines varieties to plant, cul- tural and fertilizer practices and assumes full re- sponsibility for production. The farmer is respon- sible for maturity of the green-wrap tomato; pick- ing practices; protection from cuts, abrasions, sun and wind; and handling from farm to ship- ping point. i Approximately 25 percent of the green-wrap tomatoes an East Texas farmer brings to the packing shed at shipping point are classified as culls by accepted grading standards and are re- turned to the farmer. The farmer can reduce this loss by picking more mature tomatoes and providing better protection for the tomatoes at harvest time. The packing shed operator receives the field- graded green-wrap tomatoes from the farmer, weighs and grades them, returns the culls and “pays the farmer for the accepted tomatoes. The grading operation requires 43 percent of the labor used in the packing shed and the packing opera- tion requires 57 percent. Packing efficiency varies greatlv according to the skill of the pack- ers and the sizes of the tomatoes being handled. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses appreciation to the co- operating firms which made this study possible and to the following persons who participated in the study: J. M. Ward and L. H. Hammond, assistant professors, A. C. Hudson, Don Smith, Henry Englebrecht and Joe Murphy, technical assistants, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station; R. L. Smith, Statistical Laboratory, Tex- as Agricultural Experiment Station; Safeway Over 93 percent of the containers packed i Texas during 1950-52 were lugs. ‘» The repacker buys green-wrap tomat the producer or shipper and holds the they reach the proper stage of ripeness , consumer channels. During this period, packer assumes the losses from sorting" by deterioration and spoilage and the ii price changes. l Because of the year-round demand 7 toes the repacker purchases tomatoes f producing area that is in production whe matoes are needed. ‘ a Tomato losses in the marketing sys far greater than is commonly believed. C' purchases account for only 55 to 58 pe total production, with distribution losses the marketing process ranging bGtWGGIlY" 45 percent. Loss in retail stores is 5 p I bulk tomatoes, opposed to 2 percent on “ Other tomato losses in the marketing cha 25 percent returned to the farmer as cul; packing shed, 3 percent loss in transp" and 12 percent loss during the repack ' operation. There was an average of 13.7 percent 5 a repack operation per year. This rang 7.0 to 19.4 percent per month, a marked ence in the quality of tomatoes offered A ious months. ‘ The percent distribution for cost of a at retail was: farmer 31.1, packing sh a transportation (from East Texas to Ne City) 10.7, repack operation 14.3, who] delivery 1.4 and retail store 31.8 percent. Stores; Atlantic Commission Company? E. Brown Tomato Company. ?' The work was carried out under» ~, project SM-8 in which these states and agencies are cooperating: Alabama, ' Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North . Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennesse‘ and Agricultural Marketing Service, U.; partment of Agriculture. i . l? r "GREEN-WRAP TOMATOES were the leading table crop in Texas until 1952, with an ‘alue of approximately 12 million dollars. 52 the value and relative importance 0f J; have declined, dropping to second in 'rd in 1954 and fourth in 1955. Canta- nions and lettuce now surpass the tomato value. ; exas tomato industry started about 1890 gksonville in East Texas and has ex- practically all vegetable-growing sec- the State. Figure 1 shows the areas of production by counties, some of which a and out of production rapidly. The 1 is largely a spring enterprise which is into the early spring crop in the Lower nde Valley (consisting of Hidalgo, ,' Starr and Willacy counties) and the lng crop in East Texas. Aexas a late fall crop has increased in but still is not important. The fall crop ced along the Rio Grande around Laredo county) and early fall tomatoes are pro- p» Lamb county on the High Plains. The areas supplement each other and give lalmost a year-round tomato production f Production seasons, spring and fall, are ’by weather. The spring season goes from ,hot Weather, with extremely hot weather ting the season. The fall season goes "t to cold Weather, with frost terminating wing season. ' -five counties have rail shipments of Tomatoes are shipped from Texas 9 , out of the year, but mainly during April, id June. Production during August, Janu- February is not large enough to permit truck shipments. " main problems of the tomato industry in re: the low price paid to the farmers and inion of many trades people that the i of Texas tomatoes is poor. Low prices pr quality are related. Because of the low r received by farmers, quality often is _ d for volume. An increase in poor quality s reduces terminal prices and the demand >2 as tomatoes. '8 report suinrnarizes a study of the Texas wrap tomato industry during 1951-56 on _duction areas, (2) distribution of Texas _ s, (3) handling of tomatoes by the farmer * marketing channel, (4) packing shed '0n at the shipping point, (5) repack Marketing Texas Green-wrap Tomatoes H. B. SORENSEN, Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology operation during the ripening of the tomato, (6) the loss of tomatoes in various steps of the marketing system, (7) cost and marketing margins and (8) the effect of marketing practices on tomato prices. PRODUCTION AREAS East Texas The late spring crop, produced mainly in East Texas, was grown on 9,680 acres in 1926; by 1936 the acreage had climbed to over 25,000. The largest acreage was 39,600 which was reported in 1946. From this high, the acreage slumped to 22,000 in 1955 and an estimated 16,500 in 1956. The East Texas tomato crop receives competition from the Lower Rio Grande Valley and Florida at the start of its season, and from Mississippih Louisiana and South Carolina later in its season. It is followed closely by the early summer crop from Arkansas and Tennessee. Carlot shipments of tomatoes from East Texas have been decreas- ing since 1946, Table 1. CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Production Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. 3 East Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Production Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Lower Rio Grande Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Production Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 U. S. Distribution of Texas Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Handling by Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Farmers’ Duties and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Protection ior Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Knowledge of Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Handling by Middlemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Grading Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Unloading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Cull Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Packing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Repack Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Source of Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Containers Used for Shipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Containers Used in Retail Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Labor oi Repack Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Loss in Marketing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Costs and Margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll Transportation Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Repack Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Ettect of Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l3 Retail Buying—Carton versus Bulk Sales . . . . . . .14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 TABLE 1. EAST TEXAS “CARLOT TOMATO SHIPMENTS. 1945-561 Year Truck’ Rail » Total — — — — Number — — — — 1945 269 4666 4935 1946 225 5540 5765 1947 226 4737 4963 1948 9'9 2960 3059 1949 247 3644 a 3891 1950 365 1990 2355 1951 425 3018 3443 1952 2363 A 197_0 2206 1953 672 1954 523 1955 1428 1956 778‘ ‘Information furnished by the Texas Federal Inspection Service. ’Carlot equivalents oi truck shipments made. 3N0 accurate record of truck shipments after 1952. ‘Preliminary. Production Practices The East Texas tomato crop usually is a small- scale, family-labor enterprise in which the seed are planted in hotbeds. The tomato plants are transplanted twice, once to cold frames and finally to the field after the normal frost date is past. The plant spacing used is the one that fits the equipment available. The tendency is to have wide spacing between the rows. Insects and disease usually are controlled with a mixed dust (insecticide and funglclde mlxed together) applied by hand-dust apphcators. Table 2 shows the percentage of each major variety grown during 1951-52. Some East Texas farmers buy tomato plants through truckers from the Lower Rio Grande Valley and do not always know which variety they are planting. Sometimes I 3 OR MLORE YEARS 2 vans u‘ YEAR '* Figure 1. Areas of tomato production by counties, 1950-55. 4 TABLE 2. TOMATO VARIETIES GROWN IN EAST Valley and High Plains areas in 1926. they have more than one source of seed or which results in a mlxture of var1et1es. " Most East Texas farmers who grow to have only small acreages in the crop. T, shows acreage distribution during 1951-52 representative sample of approximately H; mercial tomato growers. More than 85 i of the tomato growers had 5 iacres or l. tomatoes. ‘ 1 ‘ About 58 percent of the tomato farmef all the land they farm, 36 percent fa Q rented land and 6 percent farm both the' and rented land. Lower Rio Grande Valley Tomatoes grown in the Lower Rio Valley are reported commonly as Texas; spring tomatoes. In 1926 the Lower Rio tj Valley had about 3,300 acres of spring t; The acreage increased steadily to 65,0001, and dropped continuously to 25,200 in 195 acreage was about 34,000 in 1955 and a mated 32,000 in 1956. I .1. z, 1951-52 Variety ‘ 1951 — — — Percent —j Rutgers 75.0 l Stokesdale 1 Mixed 11.3 Unknown l 2.3 Marglobe 9.1 Gulf State 2.3 Total 100.0 ‘Not reported (less than .1 percent). The early spring tomato crop of the Rio Grande Valley has competition from ‘if winter crop and California’s early spring, and late in the season from East Texas, 3* and South Carolina. About 950 acres were planted in la tomatoes in the Laredo and Lower Rio G7 in addition to the early spring tomato cro is produced in a four-county area in the 5 Rio Grande Valley. The acreage increai 15,200 in 1949 and has remained about since that time. The fall tomato shipping .5 includes November, December and sometim first part of January. “ The Lower Rio Grande Valley is the K portant vegetable producing area in the , with the tomato ranked as a leading vegi crop. Table 4 shows rail car shipme tomatoes during 1942-56. The peak year g 1945 with over 9,600 cars. Since 1948 the if ment has been less than 5,000 cars. a r 2r 4 . EAST TEXAS TOMATO ACREAGE. 1951-52 1951 ' 1952 — — —- Percent — — - - 75.00 49.09» 19.19 97.74 . 4.55 9.45 ‘l0 2.27 9.77 in Practices mato crop of the Lower Rio Grande ‘grown on a relatively large scale. Acre- ing from '10 to 40 are common, while f 1y a grower may have more than 100. ade possible by direct planting of the he field and later thinning with hand pie direct-seeding method of planting to- i ay be cheaper than hand setting of .1 euse of high-priced irrigation land and "1 offset this advantage. The usual is to space 42 inches between rows and (=1 to 18 to 24 inches within the row. “re controlled by airplane application of 'gh humidity plant diseases are serious ‘- heavy losses. Airplane application of p; has not been entirely satisfactory. fLowizn n10 GRANDE VALLEY 014111.01‘ TOMATO i. SHIPMENTS, 1942-551 Number of Number of shipments Year shipments 3527 1950 4834 4975 1951 2307 8287 1952 2898 9650 1953 4241 9172 1954 4583 5847 1955 3384 3995 1956 3173 4274 ~ Data, Weslcrco. 1STRIBUTION OF TEXAS TOMATOES i; tomatoes are distributed mainly in the orth Central, East North Central and §Atlantic States. This includes the area icago to New York and south to Texas. ia is in competition with both Texas early 11 spring crops in the western part of the lorida, South Carolina and Mississippi .petition in the eastern part throughout early and late spring crop seasons. Fig- 'ves the percentage distribution of Texas Vhipments of tomatoes during 1954-55 and v lation percentage (based on 1950 census) area. HANBLING BY PRODUCERS i Farmers’ Duties and Functions jnquality of the tomato when it reaches the “r is largely determined by the farmer - first buyer. The farmer is responsible for deciding which varieties to plant, cultural and fertilization practices to follow and the marketing system to use. The first buyer has an oppor- tunity to reject undesirable tomatoes. Some important quality-determining factors are maturity of the tomato; picking; field grad- ing; protection from bruises, cuts, abrasions, sun and wind; and transportation from the farm to the first buyer at the shipping point. Protection for Tomatoes Farmers use various types of containers, mainly baskets, in the field and to haul tomatoes to market, Table 5. In 1951 only 11.4 percent of the farmers used liners in their containers. Before farmers picked the 1952 crop, it was pointed out to them that using some type of liner in the containers would help reduce losses. As a result, 41.0 percent of the farmers used some type of liner in 1952. The protection given by the liner reduced the amount of culls by 2 percent. The loss may be reduced further by other simple and inexpensive methods of protecting the tomatoes. When it was suggested that covering the tomatoes with shade cloths would help reduce sun scald, the number of farmers using such cloths increased from 20 to 31 percent in 1 year. This protection from the sun should be provided when the baskets are lined up during the picking of the crop and when the load of tomatoes is in line waiting to be received at the packing shed. The method of stacking the baskets or other containers on the load also can help reduce losses. Each layer of baskets should be separated with dividers made of lumber 1 by 6 inches or 1 by 8 inches and long enough to cover the width of the layer of containers. This would keep the top layer from rocking and squashing the tomatoes in the containers below. The rocking of the top containers occurs during the hauling from field to packing shed. About 75 percent of the growers transport their tomatoes to market in pickup trucks. The balance use a number of other conveyances, including trucks, cars, trailers and wagons. Growers who used the back seats or trunks of their cars gave the tomatoes some protection from the sun. TABLE 5. TYPES OF CONTAINERS USED BY FARMERS TO HAUL TOMATOES TO TOWN, 1951-52 SEASONS Type of container f 1951 1952 — — — Percent — — — Basket 75.0 98.6 Boxes 18.2 1.1 Tubs 2.3 .3 Mixed 4.5 1 ‘None reported as mixed. Knowledge of Market Table 6 shows the methods of obtaining information about the markets patronized by growers. Numerous forms of communication are used to give market news information to farmers regarding prices being paid at various markets. The telephone may be used to call buyers at the various shipping points. Daily market news reports are available to ‘the general public, but few growers know or use this service. All radio stations have market reports and the farm editors generally give the the range of prices paid the day before at the local shipping points. The local newspapers give a short report and range of prices for the day before in the area. Other methods of finding out the best prices are by talking to friends and neighbors, visiting Populotion l954-55 Av. Population l954-55 Av. Populo/tion l954-55 5w. Population Corlots Reed Corlots Recd. Cflrlbl Re“!- e‘ 2 20.2% 3.3% 3J9; Population |954-55 Av. P°P"'<='i°" Corlots Recd. 9.6% 7.6% '3-9°/~ 4.0% 1.2% 45% Population |954-55 Av. Population“ l95ll-55 Av. Population 1954-55 N. Corlots Recd. Corlots Recd. ‘ A Corlots Re l. Figure 2. Distribution oi U. S. population and percentage of Texas carlot shipments oi tomatoes received by crop-reporting regions of the United States. 6 themarket the lday before picking and by l, ing to more than one market before sellin? Using the radio, talking with neighbo shopping at various markets encourages =_ to try different places; 42 percent said th tomatoes at a different shipping point in while only 12 percent used their normal J point. Farmers patronized". more distant markets in 1952 because of the bette average price being paid because of i" production; the price was so low in 1951 _ not warrant the additional travel, Table 7. > HANDLING BY MIDDLEMEN Grading Operation The first buyer of tomatoes is the p‘ shed operator located at the shipping poin packing shed operator receives the field-__ 20.8% —_ j I THODS OF OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOMATO MARKET AS REPORTED BY EAST TEXAS FARMERS ' Do not , Have but have a not used Used — — — Percent — — — 69.1 20.0 10.9 69.1 18.2 12.7 7.3 36.3 56.4 40.7 t 27.8 31.5 Yes No _ — — Percent th neighbors 63.0 37.0 at various markets 56.3 43.7 I. yesterday 42.6 57.4 ; from the farmer, weighs and grades urns culls and pays the farmer for the ‘tomatoes. He then assumes the responsi- .1 grading, packaging, shipping, determin- ‘type of sale and receiving point and locat- rs. The same buyer at the shipping point bor force which may be divided into phases. The tomatoes are received at the 1r; then they have to be unloaded, weighed Med close to the start of the grading ,.where they are dumped. Additional help ,~ to carry the empty baskets away from ping machine to where the culls are ‘I and returned to the farmer. While the i‘; are 0n the grading machine, they are and then the culls are removed by the _.nd placed on a revolving belt that returns f8. collecting point Where they are returned Aarmer. Those accepted may be separated ' MILES TRAVELED PER rm? BY FARMERS QUES- b mourn. 1951-52 ‘M 1951 1952 j —- — — Percent — —" — 42.9 29.9 99.9 25.9 11.9 21.1 ,_ ‘ 2.4 5.9 -- '29 9.5 11.5 ’s and No. 2’s by the graders. The No. 1’s Ir a sizing belt, then the various sizes move ndless belt to bins for each size. _: were collected during the 1952 tomato ‘i on the operation of 20 packing sheds. perations were divided into phases: office, g, grading and handling of culls; and lidding and loading. "8 I unloading crew handled an average of itainers per minute, a total of 121.9 pounds. fg, weighing and dumping of the baskets u» .an average of over six men, or 26.8 percent of the labor used in the grading operation. The average belt carried 115.5 pounds of to- matoes; the average operation used 13 graders. The average run consisted of 86.4 pounds of U. S. No. 1 tomatoes and 29.1 pounds of culls. Grading required 25.2 percent of the labor used in the grading, packing and loading of tomatoes. Several methods of operations were observed in unloading and moving the containers of to- matoes to the washer and grader. Some examples are: 1. A worker lifts the container and places it on the scale and then carries it to the washer- grader. This requires considerable hand labor. 2. A worker lifts the container and places it on the scales. After it is weighed, the scales are moved to the washing and grading machine. This requires a little less labor but more equipment, (two pieces of equipment used per man). 3. A worker lifts the container and places it on a large-Wheeled cart which is moved on to a floor-type scale. This requires an expensive scale. 4. The fourth method requires a roller con- veyor with one section mounted on the scales. A worker lifts the container and places it on the conveyor and pushes the container to the section TABLE 8. AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PER- CENT OF TOTAL LABOR EXPENDED BY VARI- OUS GRADING. PREPACKING. PACKING AND LOADING OPERATIONS AT 20 SHEDS LOCATED IN EAST TEXAS. 1952 Average TYPE 9* w“ ‘mfilbm’ 1111313.‘; l§§Z°I§§§ employees ————Grading———— Pay clerk and office 1.0 4.2 1.8 Unloading and dumping 25.0 11.6 Weigher 1.0 Basket carrier 3.0 Chute dumper 1.0 Basket returner 1.0 Grading 58.3 25.2 Grader 13.0 Supervisor 1.0 Culls 12.5 4.7 Weigher 1.0 Cull returner 2.0 Total grading 24.0 100.0 43.3 ————Packing———- Prepacking help 8.8 3.8 Lug movers 2.0 Paper suppliers 1.0 Packers 20.0 58.8 34.5 Packers and lidding help 17.7 9.2 Lug pusher 2.0 Manifest 1.0 Supervisors 3.0 Lidders 2.0 14.7 9.2 Car loaders 3.0 Total packing 34.0 100.0 56.7 Grand total 58.0 100.0 used for weighing. This requires less physical labor and allows the reduction of at least one man from the unloading crew. » Cull Tomatoes Workers handling culls make up 4.7 percent of the labor force. There are various Ways to determine the amount of culls returned to their individual owners. Cooperation is essential be- tween the person dumping the tomatoes into the washer and grader and the one handling culls. To= eliminate confusion as to the ownership of the rejected culls, a bell or buzzer could be sounded and time allowed for a change in ownership between lots of tomatoes. Packing Operation About 2 minutes after the tomato is unloaded and graded, it is ready for packing. After the graded tomatoes are placed in the bins they are ready for packing in the desired containers. If the tomatoes are wrapped and place-packed, the packers need lugs and tissue paper. The packer works on a piece-rate basis; this necessitates help to keep the packer busy. After the lug is packed it is lidded. The lidder usually works on a piece- rate basis; because of this, the lugs are moved to the lidder on conveyors, which requires some labor. Before the tomatoes are loaded, the num- ber of each tomato size is recorded on a manifest sheet; this requires one person. The loading of the packed tomatoes into the car is a skilled operation and usually three men are used. The packing operation requires 56.7 percent of the total labor used in unloading, grading and pack- ing and loading, Table 8. More labor was required to handle tomatoes "in the packing phase than in grading. About 24 people on an average handled the grading opera- tion. To pack and load the same number of U. S. TABLE 9. TYPES OF CONTAINERS, BY NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE, USED TO SHIP EAST TEXAS TOMATOES BY f. AND RAIL. 1950-52 SEASONS‘ No. 1 tomatoes required an average of 34 t Of the total work, 34.5 percent was in o5 the lugs. Eighteen packers filled an ave 4.6 lugs per minute. Packing efficiency greatly according to the skill of the packe the size of the tomato being handled. O percent of the containers packed in East during 1950-52 were lugs, Tab_le‘,‘;9. Repack Operation The Texas tomato repack industry is = many processing industries operating I the producer and consumer. The repacke green-wrap tomatoes from the producer or c and holds them until they reach the propei of ripeness for consumer channels. Duri period the repacker assumes the losses! culling Qaused by deterioration or spoila the risk of price changes. The major ‘ repack operations in Texas are in Dalll Antonio, Houston and the Lower Rio I, Valley. = a Green-wrap tomatoes are received fr production areas by railroad cars or large" They are inspected to determine the de maturity and usually require a day to a "1 reach a degree of color satisfactory for sal tomatoes are placed in the ripening vaul a desired percentage is ready for sale. " A typical tomato-ripening operation f The tomatoes are run on the grading belt about 60 percent are ready for sale as in_ by color. The green and “pink” tomato separated so that the pink tomatoes : processed the next day. The green toma v returned to the ripening room until u percent show enough color to justify.» handling. It is necessary to run the to over the grading belt three or more ti ;_ cause of the uneven ripening of the toma the lots. _» 1950 1951 1952 Type oi container _ ., Number Percent Number Percent Number Peri Truck Lugs 95.712 6.02 43.545 2.02 97.190 40-lb. box 16.118 1.01 12.902 .60 1.962 45-lb. box 9.185 .58 6.552 .30 50-lb. box 2.711 .17 3.190 .15 552 55-lb. box 804 .04 60-lb. box 67.981 4.27 ' 69.938 75-lb. box 484 .02 ’ Rail Lugs 1.383.507 87.00 2.038.664 94.54 1.344.649 40-lb. box 648 .04 45-lb. box 450 .03 60-lb. box 13,161 .83 50.320 2.33 21.084 1/2 bu. basket 864 .05 Total 1.590.337 100.00 2.156.461 100.00 1.535.375 ‘Information iurnished by the Texas Federal Inspection Service. t; SOURCES OF TOMATOES FOR A TYPICAL TO- - ifMATO REPACK PLANT IN TEXAS, 1950-53 I e 1950 1951 1952 1953 — — -_— — Percent — — — — 4.1 ‘ 14.1 19.6 34.9 13.7 9.6 6.6 38.4 40.5 44.9 46.4 v 57.5 31.1 25.9 8.6 Iennessee 1 .6 ‘ 1 3.5 0s purchased for these years. ‘itomatoes ready for sale are packed in _’ s and shipped to retail stores, where a‘ ive ready for display and sale t0 the “typical repack operations described pro- ,000 to 1,000,000 pounds of green-Wrap a month. i‘, of Tomatoes yirelative importance of the sources of for Texas repack operations is shown in '. Texas, California, Mexico and Florida, rtorder, are the main sources of supply. rovides approximately 40 percent, Cali- 5 to 30 percent, Mexico 15 to 20 percent ‘rida most of the remainder. In 1951 and rkansas and Tennessee made small ship- 1 the repackers. seasonal sources of green-wrap tomatoes wn in Table 11. The different areas are "complementary rather than competitive. roduction makes up most of the May and upply, While California has the market ugust through October. During April, d November, Texas is in the market with the other areas. Texas produces tomatoes j every month, but ‘in most months pro- i is not sufficient to meet the requirements A. exas repackers. 1. SOURCES OF TOMATOES IN A TYPICAL TEXAS REPACK OPERATION, BY MONTHS, 19150-53 Texas Mexico 183i‘; Florida Other Zsrrillzistfi: — — —- — Percent — — — — — 22.4 70.1 .8 6.7 4.5 30.3 55.8 13.9 6.3 25.9 53.7 20.4 6.7 45.7 31.5 22.8 7.4 54.7 45.3 10.0 96.1 7 W 1.3 '2.6 7.5 52.1 i. 41.9 ' 5.4 1.1 . 9.8 90.2 a 10.5 98.8 11.4 4.1 95.9 11.1 39.6 ' 2.0 10.1 40.0 4.7 6.7 7.4 TABLE 12. TYPES OF GREEN-WRAP TOMATO CONTAINERS BY SOURCES, RECEIVED BY A TYPICAL TEXAS REPACK OPERATION, 1950-52 Cali- Year and container Texas Mexico i . Other Total orma — — — —— Percent — — — — 1950 Standard lug 40.6 100.0 18.4 .0 24.5 60-lb. wirebound .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Field box 57.9 .0 64.7 .0 62.2 Other 1.5 0 16.9 .0 13.3 1951 Standard lug 17.5 87.1 1.9 2.2 19.9 60-lb. wirebound .6 .0 20.3 6.3 9.8 Field box 70.4 .0 77.0 90.1 65.2 Other ' 11.5 12.9 1.4 5.1 1952 Standard lug 3.8 49.0 3.5 .0 15.9 60-lb. wirebound 37.6 4.0 47.6 27.4 28.5 Field box 32.2 .0 42.9 72.6 32.1 Other 26.4 47.0 6.0 .0 23.5 Containers Used for Shipment Most perishable farm products are shipped in some type of container to prevent damage in transit. Specially adapted containers have been~~~~ developed for tomatoes. Table 12 shows the marked changes during 1950-52 in the types of containers used and the great increase in use of the 60-pound wirebound box. Containers Used in Retail Stores Several important changes in the types of cartons used to ship repacked tomatoes are shown in Figure 3. One of the more important shifts has been from the 24-pound to the 20-pound pony box, which was introduced in December 1952 as a direct result of buyer preference. The innovation TABLE 13. DUTIES, ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES AND POUNDS OF TOMATOES MOVING BY POSITION PER MINUTE OF A TEXAS REPACK OPERATION Number Pounds per Position employees minute Remarks Ripening The number of employees room to 4.4 106.5 varies due to the amount of, grading spoiled tomatoes removed. belt Normal—4 people. Graders 4.0 104.9 1.6 pounds difference is the amount of spoiled tomatoes removed by pre-graders. Packing Number of employees va- green 2.7 48.6 ries due to volume. returns » Cull 1 9.1 ‘ Low volume of cull returns packer handled. Not steady on job. Packers The number varies with Cartons 7.3 19.3 volume and type of pack. Pony boxes The packer shifts from one Lugs package to another. Containers Lidder 1 1.4 Has other duties also. increased material (container) cost since the 20- pound box cost approximately the same as the 24-pound container and there are 20 percent more tomatoes in the 24-pound box. Another signi- ficant change has been the disappearance of the 10-pound carton. Labor of Repack Operation The number of employees required to grade and repack the tomatoes during the ripening and repacking process varies with the volume of tomatoes handled. Four graders handle an aver- age of 93 pounds of tomatoes per minute. This is considerably more volume per grader than for graders in the packing shed, mainly because the graders are making only two or three selections: green tomatoes that need additional ripening and possibly two grades of ripe tomatoes. Table 13 shows the average number of employees for certain key jobs and the volume of tomatoes handled in a steady run. This table does not cover the total labor requirements of the whole ripen- ing and repacking operation, such as mis- cellaneous help, foreman, sales personnel and clerical staff or management and buyers. It does indicate that certain personnel are required each time the tomatoes are run, and each re-run opera- tion is expensive. H |0 pound carton [111] 20pound carton 3O pound lug "é 1 ||| m In iiiij iiiii IlllllllllllIlllllllllllllll l |||l||||||l||l||l|ll|llllllllllllllllllllll] I lllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll -===~===*=*===Er5555= _ llllllllllllllllllll1ll ///m///w///w || llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll ||| numnu|n1 , nmnn IIIIIIllllilllllllllllllll a 1 |ummunlmuuuuuuuuuun nail- - lllllllllllllllll -///W////fl lllllllllllllllllllllllllll, a '////////// lllllllllllllllllllllllllll. . t t h 7W. i 0 0 o O 0 Q 0 o 0o 0 0 0 0 0 » - . Q . o . . . . . , . o o . Q . Q ' e O 0 - U Q9 N b" a lF |9s2 ° l“; s- ' o I950 I951 a Pony box 24pound LOSS MARKETING SYSTEM 1 Losses of tomatoes in the marketing s are far greater than is commonly believed. 4 shows tomato losses in the marketing c during this study: the farmer has 25 p returned as culls at the packing shed, 3 p, loss in transportation, 12 percent loss duri‘ repack ripening operation andtkin the retail 2 percent loss if the tomatoes are sold in u compared with 5 percent loss if the tomato sold in bulk. On 1,449,468 pounds of tomatoes in 1 Texas, the packing sheds returned 362,646 p to the owners as culls, or 25.0 percent q total. Only U. S. No. 1 tomatoes were ac d and No. 2 tomatoes were rejected as culls. percentage of culls varied from day to da- from packing shed to packing shed. to Records were taken on the handling i carloads of East Texas tomatoes after arrival in the Chicago market. This repre 244,859 pounds of tomatoes. When unload lugs had an average weight of 28.9 poun 1.1 pounds lower than the U. S. Standard for fresh tomatoes of 30 pounds per lug. Table 14 gives the conditions of the to cumulatively by runs. Although there was a Pony box 2O pound Carton 20's llounco Illll —_ —— ii iiijii iii i-' it ‘i i i i i p-uq II-ll ti: 1'- i‘ i i 11' ' lllllllllllllllllllllllllll / llllllllllll .. //////////// .ll|lllII ___.__.._.__' ///////////////////_l llllllllll _-______1._-_ W -__ . __,' / A s on o] :95: in 4' .1 MONTH AND YE AR Figure 3. Types of containers used to ship ripened tomatoes from atypical Texas tomato repack plant. 1950- l0 - Other contoinm ' FMAMJJAS’. CONDITION OF THE TOMATOES CUMULA- TIVELY BY REPACK RUNS IN A TYPICAL RE- ‘PACK OPERATION. 1952 ' Run 1 Run Run 3 Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Pounds Percent i - p 21.411 1s. 1 1.676 1.0 215 .1 22.440 13.2 5.625 3.3 645 .4 97.269 57.3 131.108 77.2 137.160 80.8 2.865 1.7 3.153 1.9 3.201 1.9 7.258 4.3 11.541 6.8 » 11.638 6.8 6.556 3.9 7.188 4.2 7.285 4.3 52 0 52 .0 52 .0 5.949 3.5 9.457 5.6 9.604 5.7 169.800 100.0 169.800 100.0 169.800 100.0 and shoulder-scarred tomatoes. _ge of green and pink tomatoes after the n, the amount was not significant. fut 81 percent of the tomatoes were good ipes after the third run. Some of the soft V he bruised and the tomatoes with light Tnd shoulder-scar damage were salvaged e at a reduced price. These tomatoes y are packed at about 24 pounds per lug. in and shoulder-scar damage was noted Diving-point inspection records of 56 cars to New York in 1951. It is most likely ‘r before the tomatoes are wrapped, and y results from contact with the rough, surfaces of the containers during the a om picking in the field to wrapping in the "1 shed. The loss caused by this type of i- was 5.7 percent of the 169,800 pounds of ys observed in this study. I _ tomatoes are not a total loss because the yr can sell some of them to street peddlers. 1350 percent of the culls are sold, although through June sales are higher and July h December sales are lower than 50 per- r by months during 1952-53. Only 4 months T58. marked difference from the yearly "e of 13.7 percent. January and February 0w the average with 6.9 and 7.7 percent, 15. PERCENT CULL TOMATOES OF A TEXAS “ REPACK OPERATION FOR 11 MONTHS. 1952-53 Month Percent . January February March April , Mar Y lune ~ Iulv August September " p‘ October : November ' December Average .l—|l—ll—ll—ll—|l—ll—l PPPPPNPPIQ a‘ :17.‘ Hqooacanhwqio n-n-n-I PP?- QIQQ available. Yule 15 gives the average percent of cull to-. TABLE 16. SPOILAGE- OF TOMATOES. AS PERCENT OF TOTAL SALES. BY INCOME GROUP AND TYPE OF CONTAINER. IN 12 RETAIL STORES. DAL- LAS. IANUARY-MARCH. 1955 Spoilage as a percent ot Income group total sales Bulk Carton High 8.1 1.9 Medium 12.1 1.8 Low 11.6 5.9 Total sales 9.4 2.7 respectively. June and July are the upper ex- tremes with 19.0 and 19.4 percent culls, re- spectively, which indicates a poorer quality of tomatoes offered during these months. In terms of cost and profit, the repacker must pay less for tomatoes during June and July to maintainhis margin and can pay more in January and February. Retail store studies in Dallas, Texas, showed tomato losses due to spoilage were 9.4 percent of total bulk tomato sales and only 2.7 percent of total cartoned tomato sales, Table 16. The spoilage varied with income grouping, with low income group having the most and high income group the least. COSTS AND MARGINS Marketing margin is the difference between the price the farmer receives for a pound of tomatoes and the price per pound the consumer pays. The marketing margin includescharges of handling tomatoes at the packing shed, trans- portation, the repack operation and the retail store. Figure 5 shows the cost and percentage for each step in the tomato marketing system. TABLE 17. AVERAGE COSTS OF 25 FIRMS PACKING GREEN-WRAP TOMATOES IN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY F O R SPRING SEASONS. 1947-50 1947 1948 1949 1950 — — Cents per 30-pound lug — —- Materials , Lugs 27.0 29.6 29.5 28.6 Wraps 6.0 6.4 6.6 6.6 Labels 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 No-Kuts .3 .4 .4 .4 Car bracing 5.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 Total material 40.4 40.9 41.0 40.1 Labor Cratemaking 3.5’ 3.5 2.5 2.5 Wrap and pack 10.0 8.0 10.4 10.4 General shed 16.6 16.0 15.0 22.0 Comp. insurance .5 .5 .5 .7 Total labor 30.6 28.0 28.4 35.6 Other variable expense 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 Fixed expense 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 Administrative expense 10.4 9.0 9.0 9.0 Total packing costs 90.0 86.4 86.9 93.2 11 Consumer purchases 3 percent Ion l] percent I0“ i i111: ................... .. \ 25 percent Ion 2 Pflcem h“ 5 P“ |°$$ Figure 4. Distribution losses in the marketing process during 1951-56 ranged between 45 and 42 percent, with consumer purchases accounting for only 55 to 58 percent. Loss in retail stores is 5 percent on bulk tomatoes. as com- pared with 2 percent on cartoned. Transportation East Texas to New York City-IOJ percent i costs. reductions must be effected mainly th '1 U I O . V ‘~§§¥§"§i%§i‘ ~ .1 v . . ‘phggérri . _ . . Q I o > a o‘, . . . ,' jig, s a . " ' 0 O o..'..°‘,:o o 0900» g 9 0 Retail Store-3l.8 percent Figure 5. Distribution of the consumer dollar {or each phase in the marketing of green-wrap tomatoes, based on a retail price oi 28 cents per pound. 12 I11 general, packing costs remained stabl1 ing 1947-49, but increased sharply in 1950 result 0f an increase in hourly wages unde new federal minimum wage law, Table 17. A ing cost includes costs of handling tomatoes g the time they enter the shed until they are t? on cars. Material cost increased slightly labor cost decreased somevsghat during th year period“. In 1949 the weighted average costs per lug were 87 cents, with a range; 75 cents to $1.05, depending on volume and of operation. a The labor cost per 30-pound lug in 194g 28 cents, representing 33 percent of the tota of packing. Labor cost per lug increased 5 cents in 1950, representing 38 percent of the cost. The total labor costs of packing to I based on total shed labor were 25 percent h in 1950 than in 1949, Table 17. This inc p. while drastic, is not as large as it first t. appear to be. Cratemaking labor and pa labor usually are paid on a piece-rate basis. items represent about half of the direct] According to a preliminary study, Table expense for labor and material represents =f four-fifths of the total cost of packing green- tomatoes. If packing costs are to be lowered, greater efficiency in the use of labor materials. Administrative costs represent percent of the total cost of shed operation. a Actual labor costs (18,644 lugs), by pe ages, were: a *5 Lug making 8.9 u Lidding 3.5 Car loading 6.4 Packing 33.7 Other labor 47.5 Transportation Costs Transportation and auction sales costs ’ obtained in 1951 on 56 carlots of tomato volving 40,496 lugs, which were shipped to York City. These costs were: Transportation costs per lug to New York: f,’ Freight costs $0.683 Refrigeration cost 0.127 Ice, demurrage and other costs 0.054 Unloading 0.036 Tax 0.025 Total transportation charges $0.925 New York auction charges per lug: ‘A $0.00"! Labor Inspection fee 0.0055 Cartage 0.017s Sorting a 0.014;? Brokerage and commission 0.1371 Auction charges 0.0395 Other cost and adjustments 0.0277 Total auction charges Total transportation and auction charges, per lug $1.171 flcosrs or PACKING AND BREAKDOWN or cnoss nsrunus FOR 405 CARLOADS OF TEXAS GREEN-WRAP TOMATOES sou). ; SPRING, 1947 Percent Returns Percent Cost per returns lug (cents) - per lug per lug per lug “oipts or I .5 1.84 65.4 nse 0.08 2.8 h, 40.36 44.9 ' 3 30.63 34.1 use 4.55 5.0 use 3.96 4.4 i ve expense 10.42 11.6 f; gexpense‘ 89.91 _ 100.0 0.90 31 8 t‘ 2.82 ‘clude selling expense or purchase of fruit. Repack Costs ers make up the largest percentage of loyee force, with laborers, drivers and éoffice and sales personnel following in able 19. ers have the largest cost as a group be- ey handle each tomato, Table 20. The fand drivers and helpers work with the a on a bulk basis, which lowers the cost. "I. and office groups do not actually handle toes, so these costs are prorated accord- i e total pounds handled. Between 1951 the cost of drivers and helpers decreased [cents to 11 cents per 100 pounds, mainly sof a change from an hourly to a weekly is. This change resulted in less turnover ‘I nel because employees spent less time their jobs and worked more efficiently. lcost of packers increased because there frge turnover of employees and the mini- ge was increased to 75 cents per hour. 1' over of tomato packers increased over i.- packed per hour decreased from 326.4 to unds. g 1950-53 the total cost per pound of v was .0332, .0386, .0471 and .0219 cent, ely. The average was .0352 cent which ly under the .0400 cent margin the re- _; consider necessary to maintain a profit- ration. l‘ PROPORTION OF ‘EMPLOYEES IN A TEXAS l REPACK OPERATION, 1950-53 f‘ category 1950 1951 1952 1959 —_=; — — Percent — — —— — _ 23.6 21.4 8.3 25.5 . 34.9 54.1 59.4 53.2 (l helpers 18.6 11.2 23.3 8.5 ' 11.6 9.2 4.5 4.3 9.3 4.1 4.5 8.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ent during 1950-53 and the pounds of TABLE 20. EMPLOYEE COST PER 100 POUNDS OF TO- MATOES REPACKED IN A TEXAS REPACK OPERATION. 1950-53 Employee category 1950 1951 1952 1953 — — — — Percent — — — — Laborers .18 .23 .18 .22 Drivers and helpers .25 .26 .21 .11 Packers .32 .41 .61 .55 Sales .30 .38 .42 .15 Ottice .21 .21 .29 A .31 Total labor cost 1.26 1.49 1.71 1.34 A breakdown of all cost items as a percent of total cost is given in Table 21. The major cost items were labor and material (containers). With two or three exceptions all cost items ex- pressed as percentages of total cost remained fairly constant. Material showed about a 5 per- cent increase. Part of this can be attributed to the substitution of the 20-pound pony box for the 24-pound pony box and to the general rise in material cost. EFFECT‘ OF PRICE Carlot shipments were greater in 1951 than in 1952. After the first complete Week of the 1951 tomato season, there was a change in the days of the week in which shipments were made. During 1951, farmers picked their tomatoes on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, apparently ex- pecting that prices would strengthen during the week end. In 1952, farmers picked their tomatoes early in the week in order to market them before the drop in price expected late in the Week, Figure 6. Weekly price fluctuations did not materialize as expected. Figure 6 shows the daily price range during the 1951 and 1952 seasons. Farmers re- ceived higher prices in 1952 than in 1951, partly because of lower tomato production in 1952. Also the Lower Rio Grande Valley and Yoakum areas were not shipping or had low production during the East Texas season. Table 22 shows the average 1951 retail price for tomatoes sold in cartons, bulk and greenhouse- grown in the East North Central States (Chicago area) at the time East Texas tomatoes were on TABLE 21. ITEMS OF COST AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL COST FOR A TYPICAL TEXAS REPACK OPER- p ATION. 1950-53 Total cost 1950 ’ 1951 1952 1953 Items of cost .—————Percent———— Material 32.5 36.0 37.3 37.4 Labor . 22.9 23.5 21.4 23.1 Direct operating expenses 10.2 10.5 9.6 10.9 Direct expenses 5.2 4.6 5.3 6.2 Administrative and selling expenses 28.6 23.6 25.0 20.9 Other operations _ .6 1.8 1.4 1.5 the market. In most cases, the price decreased during the 4-week period. Table 22 also shows the 1952 average retail prices for tomatoes sold at Chicago in cartons, bulk and greenhouse-grown for 1 month each before, during and after the time the study was conducted. The price of tomatoes in this area declined when East Texas tomatoes first reached the market. Greenhouse-grown tomatoes sold 9 cell more higher per pound than tomatoes in Retail Buying—Carton versus Bulk A controlled rotation-type experiment 0 ‘ 2-week periods and four different prices in 12 stores in Dallas to measure sales If Price premiums of 1, 3, 5 and; 7 cents per I Cents Per Pound Growers High 0nd Low Price I952 200 - l95I Cl I952 I80 I60 I40 I20 IOO 8O 6O 4O 2O Doily Corlood Shipments of Tomatoes S SUNM 9lOlI 789 F S SUN M I95! JUNE I 2 3 4 I952 MAY 3O 3| J. I 2 T W I2 I3 IO ll T 5 3 W TH 6 7 4 5 F 8 6 Figure 6. The effect of daily prices paid to East Texas tomato growers on shipping day of the week. 1951-52 seaso; 14 l - g m F ssuum TWTHF ssuumrwi l4 I5 I6 I7 I8 l9, 2o 2| 22 23 24 25 2s 21: I2 I3 -I4 l5 I6 I7 I8 l9 2o 2I 22 2324251; g VERAGE WEEKLY RETAIL PRICES OF TOMA- ? OES FOR CARTON, BULK AND GREENHOUSE. " ST NORTH CENTRAL STATES (CHICAGO AREA). 1951, AND CHICAGO, 1952 The relation between sales and prices, al- though not signifcant at the levels tested, did show consumer inclination toward cartoned to- matoes as price premiums on bulk increased. 1951 '2 . 1952 . . . . . Greem Greer? There was a significant difference in the sales Bulk‘ houw Bulk‘ house_ volume of bulk and cartoned tomatoes according pef gfgwn, can” p91‘ gmwn, to the income area of the store. _Bu1k tomato sales pound per pound per were highest at stores in high-income areas and P°““d P°‘"1d lowest at stores in medium-income areas. Car- toned tomato sales were highest in medium-in- ' " " " —'°°“‘s"—--—- d1 t'h'h' 35 35 55 come areas an owes in ig -income areas, 30 31 49 Table 23. 29 29 49 27 27 47 EFE EN E 29 29 42 R R C S 26 25 37 1‘. Bonnen, C. A.,-K. A. Fugett, H. M. Mayes, and Q. M. 24-9 38-5 27 27 35 Morgan, 1950. Production and marketing of spring - rgreengkwraplrtomagcges 1% the fiiower Rifo gfianile Véliey. - - ex. gr. xp. a., i isce aneous u ica ion . 19.3 27.5 . 123g 2. Bonnen, C. A. and L. P. Gabbard, 1953. Fruit and 35 39 47 vegetable statistics for Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., grged on bulk tomatoes while the price of Q tomatoes was held at the current market nalysis of variance technique was used sults which were to determine whether s in sales could be attributed to price after time and store differences were ,1 or to chance. The cooperating stores 5 whether each store was located in a '.i.ium' or low-income area and sales were by income groups. To analyze sales in rent stores on a comparable basis, pounds 100 customers were used as an indication 'ty per sales opportunity. ignificant difference was found in sales ‘tomatoes with price premiums of 1, 3, 5 _nts per pound and sales of cartoned ;; at the current market price, Table 23. e was little substitution of cartons for with price premiums up to 7 cents per "ithe bulk tomatoes. "a Circular 135. 3. Fugett, K. A., 1948. Factors affecting cost of market- ing green-wrap tomatoes in Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 1127. 4. Market News Data, United States Department of Agriculture, Weslaco, Texas. 5. Paulson, W. E., 1934. The, mixed carload in dis- tribution of vegetables from the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 497. 6. Sorensen, H. B., 1953. Marketing practices of East Texas tomato growers. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 1525. 7. Sorensen, H. B., 1952. Packing East Texas tomatoes for shipment. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 1530. 8. Sorensen, H. B., 1953. Tomato losses from harvest to retail store. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 1548. 9. Sorensen, H. B., J. M. Ward, and L. H. Hammond, 1956. Consumer acceptance of tomatoes offered in bulk, in cartons, and at varying prices. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 1847. 10. Sorensen, H. B. and A. C. Hudson, 1956. Some problems of Texas tomato repackers. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Report 1881. 11. Texas Federal Inspection Service, Harlingen, Texas. iigPOUNDS OF TOMATOES SOLD PER 100 CUSTOMERS BY INCOME GROUP, BY TYPE OF CONTAINER AND BY tQVARYING PRICE PREMIUMS IN 12 RETAIL STORES. DALLAS, IANUARY-MARCH. 1955 m Pounds sold per 100 customers Income groups y 1- .- High Medium Low a Total Bulk l Carton Bulk Carton Bulk ~ Carton Bulk Carton 7.48 9.22 6.49 11.67 , 6.09 » 11.28 6.84 10.59 7.52 8.95 4.91 12.25 6.04 9.20 " 6.19 10.37 6.49 9.71 5.20 ' 10.47 5.85 11.38 5.85 10.31 A 6.53 10.26 5.47 _ 11.87 4.37 12.57 5.73 11.32 ¢ fie t 1_ 9.54 » 5.52 - 11.57 5.59 i 11.11 6.15 10.40 t significant at the 5 percent level. 15 State-wide Researc * The Texas Agricultural Experiment St " is the public agricultural research age Location oi field research units in Texas rnain- oi the State oi Texas’ and 1s one of tained by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies pGIlS Oil the TGXGS College IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matter departments, 2-‘ departments, 5 regulatory services and the administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultur‘ of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooperating stations; by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Texas Forest Service, Game and Fish Co ' , Texas, Texas Prison System, U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technologi lege, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. Some experiments are conducted on; and ranches and in rural homes. RESEARCH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of resear sents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation. t search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 550 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs w clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: conservation and improvement of so; servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for pastures, ranges, hay, conservati improvement of soils; grain crops; cotton and other fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other s cal fruits; fruits and nuts; oil seed crops—,other than cotton; ornamental plants—including turf; b -= weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and turk" mal diseases and parasites; fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; f" ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. RESEARCH RESULTS are carried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers by specialists and agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.