auuifl“ 932 AY I959 9‘ PQRT o; THE LLEGE STATION. TEXAS Summary Texas grown pecans obtained from growers during the three seasons of 1955-57 were found to be consistently larger than those found in retail stores in Texas during the same period. Success. Desirable, Schley, Burkett and several miscellaneous varieties grown extensively in Texas are much superior in kernel percentage. external appearance and kernel quality to the in-shell pe- cans usually found in retail food stores. External defects were common among Texas grown pecans but those defects were much more prevalent among the pecans sold in retail stores. The most serious kernel defects encountered in both store and grower samples were sour kernel, spongy kernel, kernel spot, fuzziness and a varying degree of shriveling and hollowness. in the order named. About half oi the pecans sold in Texas retail stores were U. S. No. 1 grade; about one-sixth were U. S. Commercial and almost one-third were below grade. Two-thirds of the grower samples were U. S. No. l grade; one-ninth were U. S. Commercial and slightly less than one-fourth were below grade. Contents Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 RetailPrices...................,........§l Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Shelled Pecans-~~"~'~~~--~--~-~-~-- Research Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 P Gradeépicednelfijonsilipsé ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' _ _ _ - ropose rae ex or ecans........... Qlfiltlriyé 21;}; gsllsrgzclélrlilellilll Stlllle lll-ellllnls t _ _ 4 Kernel Percentage, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 size ' ' " '_ U ' ' ' "5 KernelQualityIndex,..................... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 6 KernelSize Nut Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . S . . . . 8 Comparison of Proposed Grade Index and ~ Kernel Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 USDA Grades - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ - - U_S_ Grades or Grower and Experimental Retail Sales of a Retail Store Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hl9ll'qualllY Pecans - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J Retail Food Store Marketing of Pecans . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgments ' " ' " " " " " " " " " - - - ~- - VarietiesHandled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 References................................. Substantial quantities of above grade - sample pecans were encountered, and there‘ grade that properly reflects their‘ true quality A new grade index with emphasis on“ ‘ percentage, kernel quality and kernel size ', posed. "e There was very little relationship betwee grades and prices of in-shell pecans in the; stores. This was also true for prices as rel the proposed grade index presented in this -' On the basis oi the proposed grade inde cess and Mahan retail store samples that w low grade according to USDA grade standards, actually superior to the U. S. No. 1 grade storeY ples of Stuart and mixed varieties. ' The lowest net prices per pound of pec nels were ior small-size pecans. l This study shows that serious consicl should be given to a re-evaluation of grade ards for in-shell pecans to make available uniform high-quality pecans for sale in retail l: AVERAGE ANNUAL U. S. PECAN CROP for the 10-year period ending with 1956 was Ht 148 million pounds (1). The principal pro- ; ing states in order of importance are Georgia, ’s, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Missis- ti, Arkansas and Florida, with limited pro- ion in some of the bordering states. Texas ps range from 30 to 55 million pounds annu- a Approximately 87 percent of the Texas Suction is native or seedling pecans; 13 per- I. is standard (improved) varieties. Native pecans are sold mostly to shellers. y a few are sold on an in-shell basis at retail V1 stores. The principal market outlets for Texas stand- ii variety pecans are in-shell direct sales, in l of 10 to 100 pounds, to special customers for 'vidual use or gifts; in-shell sales through re- food stores to consumers; and sales to pecan kers who shell the nuts and market only the rated kernels. The first two groups are monly designated in-shell pecans in contrast h the kernels of the latter group. ~Of these merchandizing methods, pecans sold hell to consumers bring the greatest return f growers. However, a comparatively small ‘ entage of the pecans produced are sold on = basis. Since 1948 the percentage of U. S. Tns marketed annually in-shell has ranged 21 to 12 percent, with some indication of ownward trend, Table 1. During the same p'od standard varieties, which are on the in- ‘se, represented 48 percent of the total pro- ition. In contrast, during the 1948-53 per- 60 percent of the U. S. grown English (Per- 1 walnuts, which are produced in about the ye quantity as pecans, were marketed as in- l nuts (3). This indicates that pecan grow- .may not be making maximum use of the ket that yields the greatest profit. Retail es appear to be the most logical channel for sale of increased quantities of in-shell pe- {Preliminary observations of pecans sold in gs retail stores were made to determine pos- t- factors responsible for the small supply of A marketed through this channel. It was (‘d that most stores stock in-shell pecans only _ e late fall and early winter. Pecans rarely 'pectively, professor, Department of Horticulture; _essor and assistant professor, Department of Agri- lr ral Economics and Sociology; formerly associate - essor and assistant professor, Department of Horti- r re. IMPRDVED GRADES AND DDNSDMER DEMAND FDR IN-SHELL PEDANS FRED R. BRISON, ROBERT E. BRANSON, WAYNE W. CLARK, A. H. KREZDORN and J. B. STOREY* l are available from February through Septem- ber. Other nuts often are offered by these stores during a greater part of the year. This is true even in areas where pecans are grown locally and where the culinary values 0f the nut are known and appreciated. Casual inspection of store displays revealed that many in-shell pecans had external defects, detracting from the general appearance and at- tractiveness of the product. In many cases the quality of the pecans stocked appeared to be poor. The Stuart was the most common variety handled. It has acceptable but not superior eat- ing and shelling qualities. Shelled nuts of various ' kinds, including pecans, conveniently packed for prompt use were available during all seasons ‘in retail stores that handled in-shell nuts. Research Procedure Following these preliminary observations, in- vestigations were conducted during 3 successive crops years, beginning in 1955, with pecans that were handled by retail stores and with those grown in important pecan areas of Texas. Specific objectives were (a) to compare the quality of pecans grown in Texas with that of pecans sold in Texas retail stores, (b) to de- termine the inter-related factors of quality, mar- keting practices and consumer demand and ac- ceptance that may be responsible for the com- paratively limited sales of in-shell pecans and (c) to suggest standards of quality that could insure better pecans in retail channels. TABLE 1. PECAN QUANTITIES SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES, SHELLED AND IN-SHELL MARKETS. 1948-57 Quantity sold Quantity Quantity T t l in-shell Season shelled marketed o1 a as commercially in-shell sq es percent of total sales -- — — — 1.000 pounds — — — — Percent 1948 134,500 29,653 164.153 18.1 1949 100.350 15,780 116,130 13.6 1950 93,740 21,168 114,908 18.4 1951 114,790 30,985 145,775 21.3 1952 118,420 23.456 141.876 16.5 1953 170.450 32.170 202,620 15.9 1954 74.220 12.640 _ 86,860 14.6 1955 121.400 18.480 139.880 13.2 1956 140,800 23,360 164.160 14.2 1957 117.000 16.680 133,680 12.5 Source of data: USDA. AMS Crop Reporting Board “Tree Nuts: Production, Use and Value" (2). 3 During the 3-year period, 745 random sam- ples of pecans were purchased from approxi- mately 200 retail stores throughout Texas for a study of quality and other factors that influence market acceptability. These stores were select- ed on a stratified probability sample basis to give representation to national, regional and lo- cal chain food stores as well as to independent retailers. Efforts were made to determine the place of origin of each sample. This informa- tion was not generally available, but the identity of the variety often indicated the general area in which it was grown. Interstate traffic in pe- cans is common, thus pecans in Texas retail stores may have been grown locally or imported from other states. Pecan samples from the retail stores were as- " sembled at College Station and analyzed for qual- ity. Pending analysis they were kept under favorable storage conditions. The quality 0f all samples was determined for the following fac- tors: Texture—crisp or spongy. Surface texture—smooth, crinkled, fuzzy. Solidity—or hollowness. Taste—sour kernel, rancid. Other factors—-insect and disease damage. . 1f, > : During the same period, 1,237 random ' ples of pecans were collected from growers-f wholesale buyers for comparison with the , ples from retail stores. Samples were stra in proportion to the importance of the varieties and to represent the most impo producing areas. The distribution of vari collected is shown in Table 2. All samples , taken as they came from the groves, wit, extra culling or other special preparation, market. The identity of the grove and gel or river, location was recorded for each f ple. All samples were collected during‘ the; vest season and assembled at College S =' They were held under proper storage condit 1. Size—determined by the number and analyzed within 6 or 8 weeks for the per pound. quality factors as the retail store samples Specific gravity. 3. External appearance: QUBIIIY COITIPBFISOH O1: RG18"; Insect dama e. ' I ' a on Soaked a Store Pecans with Growers Pe 1 WiHFg: ssssessiessslgzzs. t;:.‘:.;‘S:2a2.::;" Pops‘ _ retail stores, and _“grower samples” to in! Broken er epht Shells- those obtained directly from Texas gro. 4 K 1 . Size, kernel percentage, external defects and. . erne s. . . . _ nel defects are a convenient basis for com Percentage of total Welght of nut- son of the quality of the two groups of sami M ' t t t. r . . " OfilflOllllllgnijon en The Stuart variety (and Stuart mixtures " ,' other varieties designated as “mixed” in T, Celer—br1ght> eream» amber» 3 and hereafter) constituted 61 percent of. dark’ blaek- _ _ store samples, Table 3. Success, Stuart, Ma, Plumpness-Ore shrlvehng- Schley, Burkett and Western Schley, in that TABLE 2. COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DII-‘PERENTYE/EKEPSOVED PECAN VARIETIES GROWN IN TEXAS IN SE f: Samples Variety 1955 1956 1957 Total i. Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number P a Success so 2a 131 21 7a 2s zsa Stuart 45 17 103 16 57 17 205 Maha 49 19 70 11 5U 15 169 seine; 12 g3 g g3 l3 131 Burkett 7 8 96 Western Schley 15 6 56 9 27 8 98 Texas Prolific 1 2 45 7 1 2 47 Delmas 3 1 14 2 18 5 35 Desirable 1 2 22 3 9 3 32 San Saba Improved 27 4 3 1 30 Halbert 12 2 12 v All others‘ 41 16 49 8 23 7 113 Total 261 100 640 100 336 100 ' 1237 1y ling. Van Deman. Bass Paper Shell and Teche. “Less than 1 percent. 4 ‘Ideal. Moneymaker. Moore. No. 3. Onliwon. Nugget, Dependable. Kline. Iersey. Longfellow. Zenith, Williamson. Selected‘. r] a. msrmnunon or PECAN VARIETIES SOLD IN The average nut sizes of the store samples TEXAS RETAIL STORES- 1955-57 and grower samples "by production area are Year shown by varieties in Table 4. A-verage sizes Avefqgg vary widely among years,.varieties and locations, 1955 1956 1957 and between the store samples and grower sam- ples. In 1955, store samples of Stuart averaged . — - — - — _-P°'°°“1-_—"'_ 54 per pound and mixed, 63 per pound. Stuart “"1 8 8 23 12 pecans averaged 50 per pound from the Brazos i“ 17 44 l8 27 River and 52 per pound from the Guadalupe. f~ 5 2 10 6 Success from the Guadalupe averaged 47 per d‘ 51 Z7 22 34 pound, and Mahan from theGuadalupe and Red 20ml s: a: s? a: Rivers averaged 42 and 43, respectively. Simi- e. 5 5 9 7 lar differences existed for 1956 and 1957. Only 2 100 100 100 100 vilrlide differences are significant statistically, but - t e grower samp es are consistenty arger and j ples 259 26s 220 745 1311?? is considered to be of real and practical sig- i n1 icance. gas primarily of Stuart with other improved varieties. The size distribution ‘of Store and grower - - d d - th t t samples 1S shown graphically by varieties in 1 e mphasized in inaking comparisons of qual- Var1ety_€ years c(1’1m11%1n?d'hF1gure 1_Sh°WS the _ - nuts in t e upper a o t e size range for the dween the Store and grower samp1es' grower samples ranged from 37 to 52 per pound, whereas the upper half for the store samples -. _ _ ranged from 43 to 56 per pound. pecans the common measure of size is ‘~- per pound indicates large pecans, and, ples of Success is shown in Figure 2. Here frsely, a large number indicates small pe- again, the grower samples are larger. Slightly ,3 Size is very important in the evaluation more than half of the grower samples were of a > “ns by purchasers. size represented by 47 or less per pound; the 4. SIZE (NUMBER PER POUND) OF PRINCIPAL PECAN VARIETIES PRODUCED IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF TEXAS AND THOSE SOLD IN-SHELL IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES l o‘ Pecan varieties e Success Stuart Mahan Burkett Mixed Desirable Ne 52$". Ne iii Ne 33.3‘. Ne 3.2%. Ne iii‘; Ne iii". 1955 ~ samples do 51 4.9 ' e alupe 47 5.2 52 2.9 42 3.7 51 1.6 A s 64 1.2 50 3.2 53 1.3 it 43 .4 store '1‘ 57 1.5 54 7.1 49 8.1 51 3.7 63 18.0 a 1956 , samples ado 41 4.3 49 1.0 51 6.8 45 .4 " alupe 47 1.2 52 1.0 68 1.3 37 .6 ., 59 6.1 72 4.0 61 8.8 51 9.2 60 0.8 53 3.9 53 1.2 I 48 1.1 57 8.6 54 1.0 ‘isqbq 54 1.8 51 4.5 Bayou 58 3.1 54 .6 57 3.0 '_~~ 47 .6 43 1.5 store " a 53 6.1 59 9.1 56 7.8 67 1.3 67 20.0 7 . _ 1957 _ samples ' ‘ ado so 9.9 4s 5.1 44 7.7 5s 10.0 alupe 50 3.1 49 4.0 42 4.2 44 6 1 -» 48 4.9 52 3.9 49 6.0 44 1 2 41 3.0 45 9.4 41 9.2 52 7.9 42 1 1 .- 53 2.6 59 9.4 tore ' 52 6.7 56 9.0 48 7.3 55 6.9 57 11.0 umber required to weigh a pound. A small The distribution of store and grower sam-W STUART enowsn SAMPLES.___ __,__ STORE SAMPLES PERCENT SAMPLE 0' 66 7O 74 78 a4 3a 42 4e so 54 5e ' ea NUMBER PER POUND Figure l. Size (number per pound) of store samples and grower samples of the Stuart variety. 1955-57. most common size was 45 per pound and the lar- gest weighed 34 per pound. The graph shows that there were fewer store samples at all the larger sized levels and more at most smaller siz- ed levels. One-half of these weighed from 41 to 52 nuts per pound, and the two most common sizes were 50 and 54. Fifty-one percent of the Mahan grower sam- ples, Figure 3, ranged in size from 35 to 46 per pound, but only 38 percent of Mahan store sam- ples were within the same range. More than half of the store samples ranged in size above 48 per pound. The Stuart and “mixed” varieties (the latter being primarily Stuarts) constitute most of the pecans sold in retail stores, Table 3. The size data for these two were combined, Figure 4. Since Success and Desirable are similar in size SUCCESS GROWER SAMPLE5._-- -- -___ . i '\ STORE SAMPLES PERCENT SAMPLE 34's 4'2'4e'5o s'4'5s'§2 se'1o uumsen PER POUND Figure 2. Size (number per pound) of store and grower samples oi the Success variety, 1955-57. 6 MAHAN GROWER SAMPLES _____ __ STORE SAMPLES i’ PERCEN T SAMPLE 34 3B 42 46 62 so 5'4 5e i NUMBER PER POUND Figure 3. Size (number per pound) of store and gri samples of the Mahan variety, 1955-5 . “ and are grown extensively in Texas, they ‘ combined on the same graph. The prevail sizes of Success and Desirable are larger j Stuart and mixed pecans. The median line’ Stuart and mixed pecans is at the 56 nuts pound level, while that for Success and Desir A is at the 48 level. Half of the Success and sirable ranges in size from 36 to 48 nuts pound, but only 11:4 percent of Stuart and ed are within the same range. Likewise, the 4 bracket up to 56, which includes 50 percent - the Stuart and mixed, includes 77.4 percentii, the Success and Desirable. Fifteen percent‘ Success and Desirable range from 36 to 42 n per pound. There are no Stuart and mixed f rieties in this range. l Pecan growers are fully aware of the " portance of large size in the marketing of shell pecans. Purchasers are influenced hea by size, the larger sizes being preferred. data presented show that the prevailing sizesi several varieties of pecans grown in Texas :1 larger than those commonly sold in retail sto in Texas. This suggests that the larger sizes. Texas are marketed through channels other t “ retail stores. KERNEL PERCENTAGE Pecan nuts consist of varying proportions} shells and kernels, but only the kernels are ‘ ful to the consumer. Kernel percentage, the’ fore, is most important in evaluating in-s pecans. ‘- The ranges of kernel percentages for the s I; and grower samples of the Stuart variety, n’ most widely grown variety in the United Sta » are shown in Figure 5. The values for the i follow a fairly close parallel. For Success the kernel percentages for o‘; half of the Texas grower samples were 50 j more, while only one-fourth of the store samp . ' SUCCESS jQUOOESS G DESIRABLE STUART O MIXED GROWER SAMPLES,_.__ f‘ 1 ovlzn SA F‘ es ..... _,_ ______ ' \ j u 1. sroaz saunas STORE SAMPLES _ 1 _ PERCENT SAMPLE _ /'\ .. \ 1' \/' \ 4 < * 30 42 4e 5o es 1o 14 n a2 54 58 62 1 NUMBER PER POUND gure 4. Size (number per pound) of store samples oi 2. gland mixed varieties combined and grower samples of f: and Desirable combined, 1955-57. al'4'o 42'4'4'4'e‘>'4'a'sb's'2 s4 5e 5's ted this high, Figure 6. There were more Perm KERN“ 7 fer than Store Samples at every pQint above Figure 6. Kernel percentage of store and grower sam- e49 percent kernel level Thus the kernel ples °f ‘he Success "°"i°*Y' 195557" . ' r . a tage of grower samples of the Success va- ' was appreciably higher than samples of iyariety obtained from retail food stores. varieties is grown over a wide area, but collec- ages for growers’ pecans of this class, together the Mahan Variety, kernel Ifereentage with percentages for the store samples of the for the groWer samples Were sllghtly lar- same varieties, are compared with the combined ‘han for the store samples, Flgllre 7- store samples of Stuart and mixed pecans, Fig- ' a ure 8. ‘mall-sized in-shell pecans tend to be lower PCB than large-sized IILIlIS. AS b6 ShOWII The grgwer Samples Qf the miscellanegug hoWeVer, the aetllal net oost Per Pound of small varieties are far superior in kernel per- ls is less for small-sized Peeans than for centage to those obtained from the retail stores. l‘ ones- Among the TeXas-groWn smaller The kernel percentages of slightly more than half f-epeoans are the Nugget, San Saloa lmProV- (53 percent) of the grower samples of these va- 29x35 Prollflo, Ideal, Halloert, Zenlth, Jersey rieties range from 55 to 62. Store samples of ‘Onliwon- These are grown eXtenslVelY 1n these same varieties, or mixtures of them with ln Parts of the State» No single one of those other varieties, have lower levels of kernel per- centage. ‘Only about one-fourth had kernel per- centages of 55 to 60; none were above 60. m I ‘ ER SAMPLES_____ 1 TORE SAMPLES MAHAN M GROWER SAMPLES _ _ _ _ _ ___ stone SAMPLE$ PERCENT SAMPLE N l I ./ I s. DZ I W _I _/ I ,4o4|424s44454s14e4e5os|52s3s455ses1se as.‘ 4o 4z'4'4 PERCENT4 KERNEL 46 P5185“ fgfinéé 5‘ l 5° 5° I °° e 5. Kernel percentage of store and grower sam- Figure 7. Kernel percentage oi store and grower sam- the Stuart variety, 1955-57. g ples of the Mahan variety. 1955-57. 7 tively they are important. The kernel percent-W STUART B MIXED COMBINED NUQGET Q S.S.IMP. ETC. NUGGET ETC. STORE SAMPLES GROWER SAMPLES STORE SAMPLES E 6 PERCENT savor: O 3e 40 r 42 44 4s 4a so s2 s4 5's 5a so e2 PERCENT KERNEL Figure 8. Kernel percentage of store samples of Stuart and mixed varieties combined. store samples oi mixed mis- cellaneous small varieties and grower samples of mixed miscellaneous small varieties. 1955-57. The best of these small, high-quality pecans are rarely marketed in retail channels; they frequently are blended with inferior pecans. The superiority in kernel percentage of these small varieties is shown when they are compared on the graph with store samples for combined Stuart and mixed, Figure 8. In this latter group —Stuart and mixed-the median line of the ker- nel percentage is at the 46 percent level, and none was more than 53. In contrast, nearly three-fourths of the grower sample small varie- ties had kernel percentages above 53. The kernel percentages of Burkett store and grower samples are shown in Figure 9. The median value for both is about the same, almost 53 percent kernel. Relatively few Burkett pe- cans were found in retail stores. The values for BURKETT GROWER SAMPLES, STORE SAMPLE$____i__ PERCENT SAMPLE ‘P 5 ‘Y’ as 4o 4?z'44 4e'4s so 52's‘; sé 5e PERCENT KERNEL Figure 9. Kernel percentage of store and grower sam- ples oi the Burkett variety, 1955-57. 8 kernel percentage for this variety range higher than those for Stuart and mixed are the principal kinds sold in Texas retail s Desirable and Evans varieties have higv nel percentages (50 to 55), and the nuts a I perior in other respects. Both are gro, Texas, but few were encountered in coll the store samples. Data on kernel percentage show consi'_ variability among lots and among varieti both store and grower samples. It is w; however, that the kernel percentage of all. cipal varieties of grower samples is as hig that of the same varieties of store samples, most grower sample varieties were far su to the main store sample varieties. It is evi. that pecan varieties with superior quality the standpoint of kernel percentage are prod in commercial quantity in Texas, but they? parently are marketed through channels q than Texas retail stores. .. NUT DEFECTS The attractiveness of a product has a di bearing on merchandizing. Shuckworm da . pops and dark and oily color were external a fects noted particularly during the 3 years of search. Shuckworm damage detracts from" pearance, and pecans showing this defect ~ ‘ likely to have poor kernel quality. Pops hav kernels and are worthless. Dark color and ' appearance are caused by ‘deterioration of a kernel which releases oil and saturates the ~' Such pecans are worthless, and they mak package containing them unsightly. ‘ The percentage of store samples contai 5 nuts with external defects, during the 3-y survey, was greater than that for the gro samples, Table 5. This was true despite the f that defects caused by insects were not recor, for store samples in 1955; nor were oily TABLE 5. EXTERNAL DEFECTS OF STORE AND GRO ' SAMPLES OF PECANS Adhering .2212; Year Samples by shells Total insects pops ' r oily Number — — l— — — Percent — — — Store 1955 259 ‘ 53.3 53.35 1956 266 42.5 41.0 83.4 1957 220 59.5 13.0’ 72.75. Total 745 50.2 37.0 87.2 Grower _ 195s 261 53.2 14.2 61.4 ‘ y 1956 640 41.6 19.8 61.4 ; 1957 336 43.2 36.3 79.5 -= Total 1237 4.4.5 23.1 67.6 1p ‘Not recorded. ‘Incomplete data. “Oily and dark defects not recorded. f» color recorded in 1957. Although grower l les had not been given any preparation for fet, the percentages are notably lower for l» defect than for the store samples. These »ierences are clearlysreflected in the average the 3-year period. - NEL DEFECTS Sour kernel, black color and kernel spot are "- ts that impart a bitter unpleasant taste and 1 act seriously from the acceptability of pe- 1 Other defects affect the taste and flavor smaller degree but render the kernels less able. The percentages of defects of various ji- for the principal varieties of grower and e samples for 1955-57 are shown in Table 6. i‘ many kernels had more than one defect, e of the total defects recorded for a variety lmore than 100 percent. With the exception ahan, the total defects for store samples are _ter than those for corresponding varieties ower samples. p.95. Grades 0t Grower and Retail y." ‘ Store Samples »ll samples were examined for factors and ts that influence grade. The samples were 'fied into three grades on the basis of U. S. jdards for Pecans in the Shell (4)-U. S. No. . S. Commercial and below grade. he percentages of samples in the various es are about the same for the store samples ch of the 3 years, Figure 10. The averages ,;U. S. No. 1, 5O percent; U. S. Commercial, rcent; and below grade, 33 percent. » comparison, the 3-year averages for the 'er samples are U. S. No. 1, 65.2 percent; . Commercial, 11.4 percent; and below grade, percent. It again should be remarked that grower samples had no special preparation market. A high percentage of the U. S. No. mples would have qualified for this grade I with lower tolerances for defects. This _ that there are many above-grade pecans ‘ , and there is no recognized grade that ade- _ly reflects their exceptional quality. -ommon external defects responsible for the W-grade classification of both store samples ‘grower samples were insect damage (partic- ly shuckworm damage), adhering hulls, pops poily appearances. Pecans having these de- = are easy to detect and remove by hand cull- and mechanical equipment. Of 81 below- p e‘ grower samples in 1955, 23 were so class- because of external defects alone. Fourteen _2 samples in 1956 and 13 of 65 in 1957 were grade because of external defects. Care- ulling and grading would have reduced the average below-grade percentage of grow- ples from 23.4 to 18.6. our kernel and spongy texture were the two ts of kernels responsible for most below TABLE 6. DEFECTS OF PECAN KERNELS SOLD IN RETAIL STORES AND OF THE PRINCIPAL VARIETIES GROWN IN TEXAS. 1955-57 Varieties Success Stuart Schley Mahan Burkett Mixed Detects Sold in retail stores. percent 9° N l-l Sour kernel Black Kernel spot Amber 1 Dark Spongy Shriveling Slight Moderate Severe Fuzzy kernels Hollowness Slight 1.1 Moderate ' 3.8 Severe 7. Total 46.8 185.0‘ 40.1 72.4 Grown in Texas. percent 0.7 9° PPP P. Pr‘. . N QIUIQ oooocooocnm O7 o-I “S” P P9‘? 5°. P???’ QDGD Q ODQQD QI-‘Nlflvhfi . PPP PP. . Q 0O Q@\'| GDQODQ l-l ‘- a-I 5° 5*’ PPS" P. Pt". Q N I-‘UIQ bNQNIb CD r-I Q (DI-I N 2"‘ PPP 5°. P???‘ N 905$ OONQQI-Ul l9. (a) hi?! QPP \1\1\1 CON 93. l-l O PPS"? P PP?‘ 16.90769 m xiv-IN UH-II-IUH-Ivh Sour kernel Black Kernel spot Amber Dark Spongy Shriveling Slight Moderate Severe Fuzzy kernels Hollowness Slight Moderate Severe Total l" co 5° #- »- o: . FPS’ PPPFP ID Moo»:- coMcoooM biominca N . . . PFPPPP cncnoo int-cannon FFP “QPPP N $01k l—|i—l n-r FPPP P -~ GDQOII-I N 9°92“? P PPPt-‘PP (DOING-O N (DQQ QUICJOOGDN t-I U1 NN ah Pl-‘PP P mun-h- ii N 9° F‘? P (D cat- \‘l PPPP S" PPP PP??? 01010101 OD Ql-IQ NUIQI-IGO Q I-‘OO l-I ‘Total detects greater than 100 percent are due to oi defects on kernels. O.- uplication grade classifications. Excessive shriveling, hol- lowness and fuzzy kernels also were important contributing defects to a below grade classifi- cation. Throughout this investigation the mediocre to poor quality of the store samples was appar- ent. This without doubt is a basic reason for the relatively small quantities of in-shell pecans that are sold in retail stores. At the same time, better pecans were available from several pro- ducing regions in Texas, but because of market- ing practices, including price competition of low- er quality pecans, few of them were marketed through retail stores. Retail Food Store Marketing of Pecans Since food marketing policies often vary with the type of store, the pecan samples were ana- lyzed according to the types of outlets from which they were obtained. The classifications used for this purpose were national, regional and local chain food stores and independent stores opera- ting as single units or as members of a voluntary chain. PERCENT stone snmeuzs - B0 GROWER SAMPLESG 20 I955 I956 I957 I955 I956 ‘I957. I955 I956 I957 U.S.No.| U.S. Bllow C om Gm de *———US. No. l——-——l U.S. Corn, *— Below Grads “Average 0| l955-|957—-' Figure 10. Different grades of pecans sold in retail stores in Texas, and grown in Texas in 1955-57. VARIETIES HANDLED The three main varieties in national and reg- ional chain stores, in the order of frequency with which they were found, were mixed (Stuart mix- tures), Stuart and Success, Table 7. Stuart and mixed also were predominant among local chain stores, but these stores were more likely to have other imporved varieties instead of Success. This probably reflects a difference in procurement policies and suppliers for these local chain store organizations. With two exceptions native pecans were found for sale only in independent stores. The avail- ability of pecans, by variety; was similar among local chain and independent stores, since these stores frequently buy from the same suppliers. RETAIL PRICES Variety is one of a number of factors affect- ing the pricing of pecans. One of the principal reasons for price difference among varieties is nut and kernel size. Prices are summarized by varieties for each of the five classes of food l stores, Table 8. The average for national chain store samples was 59 cents per pound compared TABLE 7. DISTRIBUTION OF PECAN VARIETIES SOLD IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES BY TYPE OF STORE. average 1955-57 Type of store Chain Independent Variety V l A11 Na- Re- L cal taun- Single stores tional gional o chgn unit — — — — ——Percent—————-———- Standard Success 24 15 11 11 11 13 Stuart 34 28 22 34 24 26 Mahan 4 2 7 5 7 6 Mixed‘ 33 42 37 30 32 33 Other’ 2 12 20 9 16 15 Subtotal 100 99 97 89 9D 93 Native 0 1 3 11 1U 7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Number o1 samples 48 122 54 67 454 745 ‘Principally Stuart with other varieties. ‘Schley, Halbert, Moneymaker, Delmas, Western Schley. Burkett and other improved varieties. 10 with 53 to 56 cents for all other stores. Ma ‘ prices averaged 60 cents per pound. The L ages for the remaining improved varieties i cated ranged from 52 to 56 cents. Native pecans bring growers lower prices i cause of their smaller size. This also is refl ted at the retail store level where these nuts W priced at an average of 37 .._ceTnts per pound o 1' the 3-year period 1955-57f " Pecan prices react sharply to changes in total supply. The sharp drop in the retail sto sample prices from 64 to 46 cents per pound if 1956 compared with 1955 was the result larger crop, Table 9. SHELLED PECANS Many consumers prefer to buy shelled peca rather than the in-shell nuts. Shelled pecans ' packaged in clear film packages that permit t shopper to see the quality of the product. T ¢ and convenience and saving of time favor t, shelled nuts. i Offsetting these advantages are premi i prices consumers pay for shelled pecans. In t spring of 1956, a total of 305 samples of shell . pecans was purchased from the stores where ' shell pecans were bought the previous fall. Pa ages most commonly available were the 3 and ounce sizes with an average price of $2.33 I $2.12 per pound, respectively, Table 10. l. average retail store price for different in-sh improved varieties from the same crop rang from $1.22 to $1.40 per pound of kernel, Tab 9. Native pecans, used extensively by shelle had a net cost of only 93 cents per pound of k nel. f Consumers willing to shell their own pec =9, pay a lower net price for pecan kernels. Yet, ‘ 1957 shelled nuts carried over from the 1956 cry were priced competitively with in-shell peca This rarely occurs. r TABLE 8. AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND FOR PECI; SAMPLES PURCHASED IN TEXAS RETAIL FOOD '1} BY VARIETY AND TYPE OF STORE, AVERAGE 1955-57 Type of store variety Chain Independent A“ tildrcial gilziial Local V5113;- single stor- l —-————— Cents per pound—————§_ Standard i Success 57 57 55 2 54 Stuart 60 54 z 58 55 Mahan 2 2 . 2 2 60 Mixed 6O 58 50 53 52 i Other ‘ 53 51 46 54 Average‘ 59 56 53 53 54 *7 Native 2 2 43 37 3 Number of samples 48 122 54 67 454 7 ‘Averages for each year are weighed in relation to nu of stores contacted handling each o! the indicated varieti The 3 years are combined on a single average basis. 2Three or less samples. 9. AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND AND NET PRICE PER POUND OF KERNEL OF PECAN VARIETIES SOLD IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES. 1955-57 Average price per pound Net price per pound of kernel 1955 1956 1957 Average 1955 1956 1957 Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Cents — — — — — — — — — — — — -— —’— — — "d ' __ cess 63 47 53 54 129 96 108 1 ll a 2a :1 as :22 1s" an 7 1 8 114 121 - ed 63 45 51 53 131 94 106 110 ‘or 60 46 51 52 122 94 104 107 s’ verage 64 46 53 54 133 96 110 113 ; e 41 32 38 37 93 73 86 84 ative pecans were the best buy in each of *3 years in terms of the net price per pound yiernel. DE-PRICE RELATIONSHIP l: he pricing system for a product seldom is ioned if it is related reasonably well to “ty variations. However, pecans showed no inable price-quality relationship at the retail > level. he highest average price paid for in-shell g samples was in national chain stores, Table et it appears doubtful that national chains on the average, as good a quality of pecans e other retail outlets, Table 11. Although ller number of samples were purchased y national chain stores than from regional s, quality and pricing among national _s are usually more uniform. '3 here was a relatively large proportion of , -grade pecans sold by all types of retail _ Table 11. Table 12 shows that this was alent during the 3 years of the study for all ell varieties sampled in retail stores. l lack of relationship between pecan quality iprice is shown in Table 13. Many below- pecans sold at prices as high as, or higher those of U. S. No. 1. This malfunctioning V.- grade-price system applies to all varieties. lbelow-grade pecans for the two important ; 10. AVERAGE PRICE PAID FOR SHELLED PECAN ‘ S PURCHASED IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES. BY . PACKAGE SIZE. 1955 Price per pound vge size Number of samples ~ ces Number Dollars 1 1 4 $ 3.20 ~ 2 35 2.40 a a2 2.3a *4 19 1.98 i‘ 6 72 2.12 ? 1 as 1.95 ' 9 27 1.78 l0 3 1.97 i: 21 1.82 :15 1 1.71 6 6 1.53 or average‘ 305 2-13 Dge weighted by number of samples of each size pur- kinds—-Stuart and mixed—had a higher price per pound than corresponding U. S. No. 1 nuts. Proposed Grade Index for Pecans The lack of relationship between U. S. grades of in-shell pecans and retail prices presented a question concerning the adequacy of the grading system. A new grade index has been devised to gheck pecans for quality on another objective as1s. The three basic features of the new grade in- dex are kernel percentage, a kernel quality index and a kernel size index, Table 14. KERNEL PERCENTAGE Kernel percentage represents the net weight of the kernels of pecans in relation to the weight of the shells. It is recognized as a basic factor of quality for in-shell pecans. KERNEL QUALITY INDEX All factors of quality, including defects, are considered in calculating the kernel quality in- dex. For calculating the index, each defect of kernels is assigned a deduction value that is de- termined by the extent to which the defect de- tracts from the acceptability and culinary useful- ness of the kernels. Examples of several defects and the deduc- tion value assigned each are shown in Table 15, columns 1 and 2. Deductions for each defect are calculated by multiplying the percentage of de- fective kernels (column 3) by its deduction value TABLE 11. DISTRIBUTION OF PECAN GRADES SOLD IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES BY TYPE OF STORE. AVERAGE. 1955-57 Number Type of store s“ I311)!“ U. S. fll ‘Lmszrgg? gigs: — — — — ——Percent————-—— Chain National 48 39 26 35 Regional 122 48 15 37 Local 54 50 17 33 Independent Voluntary 76 a 55 15 30 Single 454 52 17 31 Total or average 745 50 17 33 11 TABLE 12. DISTRIBUTION OF PECAN GRADES SOLD IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES BY VARIETIES. BY YEARS, 1955-57‘ Grade Variety U. S. fil U. S. Commercial Below grade A 1955 1956 1957 Average 1955 1956 1957 Average 1955 1956 , 1957 Av — — — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent————.-———-——-—--- Standard A. Success 52 50 40 47 19 30 16 22 29 2D. 44 Stuart 32 42 51 42 14 18 21 17 54 40 " 28 Mahan 50 83 48 60 42 24 22 8 17 28 Mixed 49 50 50 5U 13 17 12 14 38 33 38 Other 54 72 ’ 50 59 26 11 28 22 20 17 22 i Average 47 50 48 48 17 17 19 18 36 33 33 Native 76 64 95 78 13 14 9 13 22 5 (column 2). The total deductions are calculated and then subtracted from 100 to arrive at the kernel quality index. An example of Success pe- cans of good quality, except 8 ‘percent sour ker- nels and 19 percent ambers, is cited in Table 15. These would have a kernel quality index of 90.1, calculated by subtracting 100 x .08 I 8.0 for sour kernel, and 10 x .19 = 1.9 for ambers, a total of 9.9, from 100. KERNEL SIZE INDEX The number of kernel halves, commonly call- ed “kernels,” per pound is a standard measure of size of kernels. Pecans that have large size kernels are usually preferred by retail customers. The kernel size index is calculated by using 1_97 kernels per pound as the base value, in this 1n- vestigation. This value Was arbitrarily select- ed since the largest kernels in this analysis were of that average size. The kernel size index of a given sample is calculated by dividing 197 by the number of kernel halves per pound for the sample. Thus, if the number per pound of Suc- cess pecan kernels, in the example in Table 15, is 246, the kernel size index Would be 197 + 246 =80. Incidentally, kernel size is calculated by mul- tiplying the number of in-shell nuts per pound by 2, and dividing the product by the kernel per- centage of the lot. Thus, for pecans testing 48 nuts per pound and 52 percent kernel, the kernel size would be 48 x 2 -I— 52 I 185. The grade index is determined by multiply- ing the kernel percentage by the kernel quality TABLE 13. AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND OF PECAN VARIETIES SOLD IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES BY GRADE. AVERAGE 1955-57 Grade Variety l U. S. Com- Below iY U‘ s‘ t 1 .mercia1 grade - — — — — Cents — — — — — — Standard Success 55 52 55 Stuart 55 55 57 Mahan 58 7U 54 Mixed 52 52 55 Other 56 55 54 Average 54 54 57 Native 37 46 36 index by the kernel size index. The Succes* cans cited as example in Table 15 would ha f grade index of 48.9 x 90 x 80 = 37. Data 0 ternal characteristics and defects to derivj index of external quality are not considered. such an index could be easily incorporated in‘ suggested model. ’ A comparison of the grade index with»; price per pound of retail store samples rel that native pecans are loW priced not as a _' of their quality index (93) but because of t low size index (43). The combination prod a grade index of only 18—the lowest of group. It is not surprising, therefore, that,» price of these native pecans in retail stores", the lowest. i This type of objective grade index, at the ' time, also reveals that the Wide variance in w; ity among improved pecan varieties found i _; tail stores is not adequately reflected in th tail prices. If Success with a grade index t. is Worth 54 cents per pound, Table 14, obvi‘ Stuart with a grade index of only 24 is not wt 53 cents per pound. Prices of mixed y mixtures) and of the “other” improved vari are also overvalued in relation to their obj], quality. i These findings suggest that a reapprais“ the present USDA pecan grading system handling practices in general might have pr. able advantages for growers, handlers, she, retailers and consumers. More attention to can quality would result if the price stru adequately reflected quality differences. TABLE 14. AVERAGE PERCENT KERNEL, KERNELS: POUND, QUALITY INDEXES AND PRICE PER POUND w; CAN VARIETIES sow IN TEXAS RETAIL sronzs, A AGE 1955-57 Aver- Variety "g9 Q5?“ K112? 1s i" ‘Fade ' Lieefrieelii index pound index index _ Standard Success 49 92 218 9U 41 Stuart 47 64 243 81 24 Mahan 50 88 197 100 44 Mixed 48 85 259 76 31 Other 49 88 265 74 32 a Average 48 81 247 80 31 Native 44 93 455 43 18 12 15. FACTORS CONSIDERED IN CALCULATING i KERNEL QUALITY INDEX FOR IN-SHELL PECANS Dedudi"! Example: Success pecans ""1119 1°‘ ~ 48.9 percent kernels each percent of defective Percent . kernels defective Deductions (2) (3) (4) _ 100.0 8 8.0 r 10.0 19 1.9 » 10.0 0 0 t '_ owness 5.0 0 0 ; rate - I I owness 7.5 0 0 :‘°‘ owness 10.0 0 0 ~ i, ‘veling 5.0 0 0 rate ‘veling 7.5 0 0 ' e ‘veling 10.0 0 0 t otal 9-9 Tlernel quality index. 100 -— 9.9 = 90.1 ‘iomparison of Proposed Grade Index and USDA Grades Since the prices paid at Texas retail stores f pecans were not related satisfactorily to in grades nor to the proposed grade index, e remained another possibility. The USDA- eif‘ 16. RETAIL STORESAMPLES BY USDA GRADES i COMPARED WITH PROPOSED GRADE INDEX Number USDA Propoised Retail oi gra e - _ - ' samples grade index pnce ard a... 41 111 47 s4 t. 18 i2 41 52 ; 32 B.G. 39 56 ‘Total or av. 91 1.91 4s 54 art 80 fil 27 51 l, 35 112 23 51 ' 81 B.G. 21 56 ffotal or av. 196 2.0‘ i4 - an 21 i1 4 “ 10 112 50 70 - 8 B.G. 35 55 p-Total or av. 39 1.7‘ 44 60 ‘ ed 123 fll 33 54 A 35 112 27 53 e e 92 B.G. 30 60 otal or av. 250 1.4‘ 31 56 er 64 fll 33 52 i 24 112 32 56 f 22 B.G. 26 53 Total or av. 110 1.4‘ 31 53 i‘ Av. 329 fljl 34 53 l 112 I 112 31 54 235 B.G. 27 57 Total i" or av. 686 1.8‘ 31 55 40 fll 17 37 4 £2 23 46 6 B.G. 18 39 f otal or av. 50 1.3‘ 19 39 i‘ d on a value of 3 for below grade (B.G.), 2 for 2 (U.S. ercial) and 1 {or U.S. 111. - U.S.D.A. GRADES e SUCCESS native Stuart mixed and other Success and Mahan "°"' ‘ u STUART G XMAHAN Cm“ AMIXED A o OOTHER GNATIVE Q ° A s ' |s ' '25 5'5 ' ' 43f 5s PROPOSED GRADE ‘INDEX Figure 11. Relationship between proposed grade index and USDA grades. and the proposed grades might be highly corre- lated, each substitutable for the other, and there- fore neither related to the retail prices. Table 16 shows that the proposed grade in- dex tends to be correlated with the USDA grades, with three important exceptions. The relationship does not hold for the Mahan, mixed and native pecans. The proposed index for these three varieties is actually more closely related to the market prices than to the USDA grades. The below-grade samples, according to USDA standards, of Success, Mahan and mixed varie- ties bought in retail stores have a higher grade index, under the proposed new system, than do U. S. No. 1 grade Stuart samples bought in these stores, Table 16 and Figure 11. This sharp con- trast emphasizes the desirability of a grading procedure than can be used by pecan growers, buyers, shellers and consumers to insure more uniform quality nuts for the entire marketing system. Expernmental Reta|| Sales of H|gh-qua||ty Pecans A retail store experiment was conducted to determine whether consumers are interested in buying better quality pecans than those usually offered in national chain stores. Cooperation was provided by a major national chain and a co- operative marketing association. A special high quality pack was prepared and placed in selected chain stores in Waco, Texas. Waco’s metropol- itan population is approximately 106,000 and its previous use for market testing proved it to be a reliable market test area. A preliminary market test occurred from No- vember 26, 1956, to January 26, 1957. It was followed by a controlled test from November 25, 1957, to January 4, 1958. The same stores par- ticipated in the preliminary and final test. The Goldkist Pecan Growers packed the test pecans in l-pound cellophane bags comparable to those used for the other pecans, Figure 12. These pe- cans were graded for exterior quality and uni- form size. In addition, each pecan was weighed 13 Figure 12. Attractive packaging of pecans permits the customer to appreciate the value of uniform grading. by machinery specially designed t0 eliminate pops and any light-weight pecans resulting from poorly filled kernels. The experimental pack of Goldkist pecans in the preliminary test, 1956-57, were priced at 52 cents per pound while the regular store stock was 49 cents per pound. Store displays were not controlled, thus each store manager used his own merchandising methods. The Goldkist high-qual- ity pecans (at 52 cents) outsold the regular com- mercial pecans (at 49 cents) 1,048 pounds to 604. The closely controlled retail test during the winter of 1957-58 limited the Goldkist high-qual- ity pack and the regular commercial-pack pecans to equal size displays. The pecan crop was smaller for the 1957-58 season, resulting in high- er prices. The Goldkist package was 60 cents and the commercial pack was 57 cents. The pricing of the test pecans was a disadvantage 314 from the merchandising standpoint. How a severe test was desired because marketin a higher quality pecan probably would enco A this type of pricing relationship. The Goldkist pecans outsold the Commei pack pecans 271 pounds to 234. In 1957-58‘ margin between prices of in-shell pecans o shelled pecans was narrower than usual, and ~1 sequently total sales of in-shell nuts were”. siderably less than a year earlier. These retail market tests show that an ciable number of shoppers are quality consc and are willing to pay for the extra qualit pecans. These tests point out that the pecanj dustry needs to have a grading procedure will emphasize adequately the quality variat in in-shell pecans. This would help prevent v standard pecans from entering retail chan and depressing consumer demand. . a ' Acknowledgments The authors hereby express their appr tion and thanks to the Goldkist Pecan Grow Seguin, Texas, for supplying very generous q tities of pecans for this investigation and . Safeway Stores Incorporated for cooperation; conducting the consumer acceptance studies. writers also are grateful to many pecan gro who supplied samples of pecans for testing. References 1. Agricultural Statistics. 1957. U. S. Dep ment of Agriculture, p. 319. g 2. Genske, Joseph C. 1959. U. S. Department: Agriculture, Crop Reporting Board, a Nuts: Production, Use and Value. Co pondence. 3. Graham, E. M. 1955. Can Growers Do thing About Pecan Marketing? Proceedi, of Southeastern Pecan Growers Associati p. 33. 4. U. S. Standards for Pecans in the Shell. 19 U. S. Department of Agriculture. i [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemalcers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service 306161” ,6 Wéfiédlfé ~95 30771 OPPOLU if PO9V€65 State-wide Research .. " .1!’ ‘k The Texas Agricultural Experiment Statioi is the public agricultural research agen A oi the State oi Texas, and is one oi te parts oi the Texas A&M College Systef‘ IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 ¢ matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services < A administrative staii. Located out in the major agricultural areas oi Te I 21 substations and 9 iield laboratories. In addition, there are l4- coope A stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the orest Service, Came and Fish Commission oi Texas, Texas Prison S i U. S. Department oi Agriculture, University oi Texas, Texas Techno] College, Texas College oi Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. _ THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, V, in 25 programs, which include all phases oi agriculture in Texas. A these are: ' Beef cattle Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys V Animal diseases and parasites‘ Fish and game Farm and ranch engineeringfi Farm and ranch business Marketing agricultural prod ' Rural home economics l Rural agricultural economics: Plant diseases a Conservation and improvement oi soil Conservation and use oi water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other iiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central SC) I AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS. the WHYS, the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which coniront operators oi iarms and ranches, and the many industries depending on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station and the iield units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these problems.