xt72ng4gp10n https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt72ng4gp10n/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1958 journals 071 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.71 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.71 1958 2014 true xt72ng4gp10n section xt72ng4gp10n Progress Report 71 November 1958
COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE MARKETING IN KENTUCKY - 1957
(Seven Selected Areas)
By Willard H, Minton
(Filing Code 7-1)
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON

 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE MARKETING IN KENTUCKY - 1957
(Seven Selected Areas)
By Willard H, Minton
Department of Agricultural Economics
I Marketing information and data for commercial vegetables were gathered
from seven selected vegetable assembly markets in Kentucky. The attached
‘ Kentucky map (Fig. 1) indicates the general production areas that were the basis
for this report. .1 Of the commercial vegetable markets in Kentucky in 1957, these
seven were selected because (1) reliable marketing data were readily available,
(2) the assembly market generally dominated the vegetable marketing for the area,
and (3) they were assumed to represent a cross section of commercial vegetable
. marketing in Kentucky. ·
Kentucky farmers have been seeking additional cash crops to supplement
their incomes. Hence, in recent years, an interest in commercial vegetable pro-
5 duction has been evident and currently appears to be on the upgrade. Some of the
areas that had been in commercial production prior to 1957 not only increased
their output of old products but added new ones. In addition, new areas with a
substantial volume of commercial vegetables appeared in 1957.
· Produce sold by the seven markets in 1957, in their order of financial im-
portance, were tomatoes, sweet corn, green beans, cabbage, sweet peppers, and
cucumbers. Sales of vegetables through the seven markets in 1957 were primarily
- to the fresh market; hence, 95 percent of the dollar volume went to fresh-market
channels. The remainder went to processing. However, recent interest by pro-
~ cessing companies indicates a potential outlet for more vegetables grown for pro-
cessing in Kentucky. These seven markets sold the above·-mentioned vegetables
for a total of $248, OOO. _2;/ Of this, $66, OOO went for local marketing expenses,
i and $182, OOO was take-home money to the farmers to cover their on-the-farm
costs and returns to labor. The farmers in the areas benefited by additional cash
income, and some part-time local employment was provided.
Those in the commercial vegetable business should strive for a uniform,
standardized, and a consistent-quality product. Quality is one factor that needs
close attention if Kentucky farmers are to obtain and hold an outlet for their pro-
ducts. Too, the spread between a fancy or Number I grade and a cull or unclassified
grade is generally great enough that it often spells the difference between a successful
operation and a loss. Frequently an unclassified or cull product will not recoup
i marketing costs and cost of container, notwithstanding the on-the-farm costs of pro-
duction. One of the local markets showed a 4.,8 cents per pound difference in the
take-home price between Number I and unclassified tomatoes. This difference is
significant, considering the average take-home price per pound for the seven mar-
kets in the state was 5.4 cents per pound.
1/ Letters designate the counties in which the local assembly market was located.
2/ Refer to Fig. 1 to determine which vegetables were sold by each market.

 M _~
gf \••\`\ I
J  s \.
8 ze i·•\= I
CJ 7 &   E Ln
"2   \.    
( Q _ <“<`
¢ it x a s ~
= »  *   E E E
/   Q ‘E .
1     *3:.*% z
<1 1     .a
 ¢a€’*¢i  
 •§ - Q   é: I-he Q I
f€     ~:~—: 2  
@ _ ‘   Ewa E  
•.\ . : I { (D 4
'° ·?   * 5   EE § @1) 1
..\"`   =. J) E   tg
!.. 2 Eg E 3
v 1* W2 ° E
ih", a     '§ E
    *66 ~· 3
*2 E     § C:
• ‘ ,2 G)
      Zi; E ..I .
         
  ·. <1¤.°` Q
¤-/& 4 3 ,35 gz
  I %· O na
g   1   E
HJ •° ? c {2; §
/ E gg .
·..; •· 'L_.   B
aéu “
d

 The remainder of the report is a discussion of each of the major commercial
vegetables marketed. The discussion of each includes the volume of sales, total
take-home money to the farmers, average take-home price, and cost of marketing.
In order to conceal identity, the range is not given when only two markets handled
a product.
TOMATOES
Tomatoes were the most important single product in terms of total take-home
money to the farmers. They were marketed commercially by six of the seven
— markets in 1957. These markets sold 1, 312, 820 pounds of tomatoes for a total of
$70, 804.29 after all costs of marketing including cost of containers were deducted.
This was an average take-home price of 5.4 cents per pound to the farmers for
their on-the -farm costs of production and returns to labor. Take-home prices
ranged from 3. 5 to 7.1 cents per pound, by markets.
Tomatoes were marketed in 8, 10, 20, and 30-pound containers. The average
cost of marketing,at these local assembly markets for tomatoes was about one cent
i per pound. Cost of marketing ranged from two-tenths to 1. 6 cents per pound, by
markets.
8 SWEET coRN
The year 1957 was the first year that Kentucky farmers showed a pronounced
interest in sweet _corn as a commercial cash crop. Sweet corn was sold by two
of the seven markets in 1957. These markets sold 304, 670 dozen ears of sweet
8 · corn for a total of $56, 325. 88 after all costs of marketing including cost of con-
-, tainers were met. This was an average take-home price of 18. 5 cents per dozen
ears to the farmers for their on-the -farm costs of production and returns to labor.
Sweet corn was marketed in both crates and bags containing 5 dozen ears per
container. The average cost of marketing sweet corn at these local assembly
‘ markets was 15.2 cents per dozen ears.
GREEN BEANS
Green beans were sold by four of the seven markets in 1957. Farmers sold
in these markets 24, 442 bushels of green beans, for a total of $36, 517. 74, take-
home money, after all costs of marketing including cost of containers. Approxi-
mately one-half of the green beans were sold on the fresh market and one-half
to canneries. Beans sold on the fresh market returned an average take-home
price of $1, 69 per bushel to the farmers for their on-the-farm costs of production
and returns to labor. Take -home prices ranged from $1.11 to $1.87 per bushel,
by markets. Beans sold to canneries returned an average take-home price of
T $1.29 per bushel to the farmers.
Green beans were marketed in both one-half bushel and bushel containers.
The average cost of marketing at these local assembly markets for fresh beans
was 12.0 cents per bushel. Cost of marketing ranged from 6.7 to 16.3 cents

 -4.. [
per bushel, by markets. The average cost of marketing for process beans was
35.9 cents per bushel, about three times the cost for fresh beans.
CABBAGE
Cabbage was sold by three of the seven markets in 1957. These markets sold
594,440 pounds of cabbage for farmers, for a total of $9, 783.49 after all costs of
marketing including cost of containers. This was an average take mhome price of
1. 6 cents per pound to the farmers. Take-home prices ranged from 1.4 tc 2. 3
cents per pound, by markets.
Cabbage was marketed in 40·pound crates, 50~pou.nd crates, and 50~pou.n.d —
bags. The average cost of marketing at these local assembly markets for cabbage _
was 0.18 of a cent per pound. Cost of marketing ranged. from O. ll to 0.20 of a
cent per pound, by markets.
SWEET PEPPERS
Sweet peppers were sold by four of the seven markets in l957. These mare
kets sold 5, 337 bushels of sweet peppers, for a total of $6, 836.21., take~h cme § ·
money, after all costs of marketing including cost of containers. This was an
average take-home price of $1.28 per bushel to the farmers, Take --»home prices p y
ranged from $1.17 to $2. 24 per bushel, by markets.
Sweet peppers were marketed in bushel basket containers in 1.957. The
average cost of marketing at these local assembly markets for sweet peppers was
6. 0 cents per bushel. Cost of marketing ranged from 5.0 to 18., 7 cents per bushel,
by markets. _
· CUCUMBERS
Cucumbers were sold by two of the seven markets in 1957. Farmers sold
625 bushels of cucumbers through these markets, for a total of $1, 032. 60 after
all costs of marketing including cost of containers. This was an average take,-
home price of $1. 65 per bushel to the farmers for their onsthe.-farm cost of pro·~ _
duction and returns to labor.
Cucumbers were marketed in bushel basket containers in 1,957, The average
cost of marketing at the local assembly markets for cucumbers was 7.2 cents per
bushel,
  3M—l .1. -58