xt76dj58f86h https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt76dj58f86h/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1927 journals kaes_circulars_204 English Lexington : The Service, 1913-1958. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Circular (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n. 204 text Circular (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n. 204 1927 2014 true xt76dj58f86h section xt76dj58f86h    E_( E`i"`f ;'  I'»\A ’{v¤ »·':`r·* gv.; Aga
  RURAL. l· I iT~¢.1'-xw! Ll;
 Eg  COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
 1* . . . .
 I Extension D1v1s1on
  R THOMAS P. COOPER, Dean and Director.
  CIRCULAR NO. 204
 ¥» The Market Outlook for Kentucky Strawberries
 s Lexington, Ky. `
  January, 1927.
 i Published in connection with the agricultural extension work carried I
 . ml by ¢00Deration of the Ciollege of Agriculture, University of Kentucky,
·, with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and distributed in furtherance
  °f um work provided for in the Act of Congress of May 8, 1914.

 ? ~    ‘_`
"11 
 
 
 {
J 4  Qi
.· — ‘ ’ 4 E  1
n " Eff
,»/     "~._ 0  `=
.-‘ Y •· `— ,_ U V `
`2~~—--~·`~<;Z~--···*;-3·;`)` ”ji"fY`F~‘>· 1 `” . =. : 1
1   ‘ ;.,»°'\;:{,.¤r·}V» 1 . Q  .1 ‘
`1-’ ' F EVN I ‘. / · 12  ..
· \k · · 1i \‘ rl!     I; L) ¤`t/  
1 • `X • Y‘;"L_J\ "¤ 1) // i fd @1  
• K F li * ' ; $2 Z~  F
1 1   · ,·¥*~:. ·   €\ ‘~..,·" ? =   ‘
' Sq'. T¤;~·’     •_     1 bellig
, I ' E / i _;   I
`\ _ ·· ·•: •. 1 , Z P' ¤ ;— ‘_  gU’3“
_ , .·• 1; 11 1 iv z  - . O
. . ,-/ r` 1 Q . .: e 1
  ' • 1-c_ . Z g 1 ___~»·‘ ‘ _ . 3   hem?
j  . •   •',° Q   Yi- ,- 1:%    51 t€]1s1‘
.4/*·~---1 1 ’ . -
la _.-•'   .- t a M  _}.
K U · .»y%Y·"‘=— -"‘;;,}1 J ?   pcm?]
· E ' · * w' i E 'Q   bc 111
1 F \;·~_ F 1 { 1 E ‘ 1 C g
~_ ` { ) \'·~?»' 1 i l/`    _ > t 1 »
5 ' V- ’ { g 4--"- u` V: • 1
é ra   Z E--"___..:;      
ll ‘ • ,--—-""Y ` ‘-·  ·_' ·
V I ’\v` ': a . 2 rd j'   `\ { C  t`  
-1 ‘ · ( { 1
( · ,;{ g 1 ,1 1
j E ,-‘ ¤ 1 ,[ ·*’ :  ;
cs -~—--*7* E * 1 f' Z [
· f 1 ! 1 * »
1 »»·'T“ § 1 ¤ < J E  ·
i _,/" · ,   } _J /‘ ; .»
{ 5 I 1 1 r"" / ‘¢  1
i 1 , . 1 · 1 E  1 .1-
¤ 1 1 3 E I 1  1 mul`
Q 5 · » __-.--.-4 5 `$ 1 ; .
é § Z r"".` L 1. -- -——·"""7 r lc 5 @1011.
1:         E 4`IJ _' 7-
· ' ¤ i » n f'
! F _i.-- ——··v { G C `
*| __ _.-i-—·v* " y . I / g _
11 · ·— · • ‘ · r `QC
g   { I     . aff <
i s { } 5 E  ‘ flucl
2 1 1 1 e 1 ‘ ·
{     --.--.--`.-.é._._,-,_-.--1———··1 Z  i busu
1 [ 1 ` * 5 :  . . `
}   E   3 E  1; 1101
j 5 ""Td } {I E  Q 011 f
! A', { { J   for 1
[ i____~"_"_v—` ll ii r; .
f /" J }` "`E -~,»’~\,— 5 .  2 UGH
""`” " /’V F 2   11111
.— — —~-~ 1 ,-..1- i s = <
{ i. \,~,. _ _ _ _’.’ // ; E E:  .
} 1 1 / ·; = sh1fW
[ { 1 /' »- 1 
,' 2 ,’ /·’ \_ 1 V wh?
{ \ l`—~— `._.___» ,.1 jj
‘ r ·  ..
,' __; j _;  
, ;  g thc
J  `
\·  
i [

  
,—’’  
  CIRCU LAR NO. 204
  The Market Outlook for Kentucky Strawberries
  By DANA G. CARD .
  The commercial production of strawberries in Kentucky is
 r being expanded rapidly. In some parts of the State where
  strawberries never have been grown commercially, plans are
  being made for a large acreage in the near future. Before ex-
it  tensive plantings of a new crop are made, in localities where
l  V people are unfamiliar with its production, consideration should
 Q he given to the economic factors which will have a bearing upon
[ V`  .—_ ? the success likely to be attained in the growing and marketing
_   of such a crop. Some of these factors are discussed in this cir-
  -  cular.
   S MARKET FACTORS i
  i Supply and demand are factors of such importance in the _ ·
t   marketing of strawberries that they warrant careful considera-
5   tion. .
  ' Dcmmzd. Strawberries are not at staple food and sales are
  ft affected quickly by price changes. The demand for them is in-
E  Qi iiueneed by weather conditions, competition of other fruits, the
    business and employment situation and other factors which can
    not be foretold very far in advance. In view of the limitations
   _` 011 forecasting the probable future demand, it. will be assumed
é   for the purpose of this discussion, that the per capita consump-
   . tion of strawberries in the future will not differ greatly from
   is that of the past. Producers should be on the alert for possible
;, ·  shifts in the demand, however, and take them into consideration
A  S. when making their production plans. ~
   IQ Sllllllll/. The supply of strawberries depends largely upon
 .` the acreage harvested and the weather conditions that prevail

 4 Kentucky Extension Circular N 0. .204  
prior to and during the harvesting season. The quality of fruit,   TABL
yields and production vary so much that seasons of low prices  i
and seasons of high prices are almost inevitable. The acreage of   "
strawberries harvested probably is the best single measure of  
the size of the industry.   ASE
TRENDS IN STRAWBERRY ACREAGE  gp,. _,.
Changes in production for the country as a whole, when   Mcora
considered from the long time point of view, should about keep  Fi SEQ;
step with changes in demand. Changes in the production of any   Ass<
particular region should be made in the light of changes in de.  Y ELOIQQE
mand and changes of acreage in competing regions. The prices   llffenk
received by growers in one of Kentucky’s largest strawberry    
marketing associations show only a very slight tendency down.   Hdpki
ward since 1917. The trend of expansion in this State, during  Y  
T the past ten years, apparently has been about in line with market   Todd
conditions and demand. Yearly fluctuations in acreage, how-  _. T,
ever, have been large in some instances.  ‘ -_
Kentucky. Table 1 shows the acreage of strawberries, the  a  
carloads shipped and the number members by associations in  _
this State, as reported to the College of Agriculture by assoein-  
tion managers and other interested parties. The total acreage  r
as reported indicates an increase in 1927 of more than 54% over   L
1926 and of nearly 140% over the acreage of 1925. This in-  V
crease is largely in Vinarren, McCracken, Ballard and Simpson  
counties.  ’
Competing States. When comparing Kentucky with those in Mlm
states whose strawberries go to market at about the same time or _  N. Cz
slightly earlier, it appears that the states whose berries precede   ies;
Kentucky’s on the market are decreasing their acreage while EZ  `virgu
states whose marketing season more nearly coincides with that  _ T
of Kentucky, are increasing production, Table 2. lf theS¤*   K t
diverging trends in acreage are temporary in nature, some read- , Miss;
justment may be expected in the near future.  j  
i ·· T By grouping the important strawberry producing stiltéi   pi`;
according to the time of harvest, a comparison of acreage changes  _
of Early, Second Early, Intermediate and Late producing StHl€$  ip -41

  
  The Market Outlook for Kentucky Strawberries 5
  -I-ABLE 1,-strawberry Acreage, Membership and Carload Shipments
 _i of Associations in Kentucky.
,.   
 Y *¤ Mem- Carloads
  kg Acreage I bers IShipped
 f? Association $ Q  
  Wg, 1922I1923I1924I1925I1926|1927‘ I1925I1926I1925I1926
    I I I ,
 i" I I I I I I I
 IIS McCracken Co. I1913 500 500 775I1175I1822I3000 I 675I1020I121 I217
I  Warren C0. |1908135016001100I 300I 450 700 I 10OI 150I 44 I 81
  I dependent I I I I I I I I
F  HAssociation I1922I ........ 225 185 250 300 500 S3I 97I 27 30 .
 Z. Woodburn I1923 ........ 75 150 75 140 175 71I 86I 16 23
I ‘=I'`_ Oakland I1920 660 700 400 250 300 400 200I 225I 30 I 54
   _·‘’ Franklin I1919 500 500 300 300 600I 800 95I 226I 51 I111
  Christian Co. I1916I 750I 500 400 150I 250 350 I 100I 110I 7 I 20
  Pembroke |1921 170 135 150 140_ 150 250   45I 57I 6 I 14
 *.6 Hopkinsville I1919 250I 200 150 100I 200I 200 I 50I 50I 5 I 14
 I Logan C0. 1921 200I 200 200 100I 250I 350 I 100I 200I 10 I 26 -
`   Henderson 1922 15 15 15 19I 13 150 I 28I 19I 52 3’ .
.I Todd Co. 1920 125 75 40 20] 0 25 I OI OI O 0
 - I———·————I~—|·—I—I——
- —. Total I I4520 4725 3865I2S79I4475|6900 I1547I224OQ322 I593
i I I I I I I I I I
 ` ‘Estimate of 1927 acreage made in 1926.
3  1 ¥Carload equixalent sold locally and in l.c.l. shipments.
1  _ I
. 3  TABLE 2.—Strawberry Acreage and Carload Shipments. `
0  f (Kentucky and Competing States.) ,
Y I Acres I Carloads
I-  `_ SIHIZB  
. I
H g 1924 I 1925 I 1926 I 1924 I 1925 I 1926
? - . I I I I .
~ WT _—_ t| IFT I _d—_
°€ I Arkansas I 15,2OOI 14,860I 13,97OI 1,613I 1,009I 1,321
Ir   N. Carolina I 5,690I 5,040I 4,590I 2,046I 1,660I 1,232
Ie ` S, Carolina I 540I 430 43OI 70I 44I 21
  'IPIIIIQSSEQ I 21,170 16,160 12_12OI 2,902I 1,661I 1,248
Ic  __ `\`1I`glI11ZL I 10,700 8,300 12,120I 1,919I 1,239] 1,143
I I
II  I I Tom I?I—— ——·—I-—·I———I—·
. . I 53,300, 44,790 43,230I S,550I 5,613I 4,965
S0   I I I I ’
(I  I,‘ IG?;1;g1GIi.y I 4,370I 3,080 4,7OOI 467I 305I 570
_ i uu 11,000 13,000 16,120I 990I 1,571I 1,335
I- D€I£1\VH1‘e I 6,100 5,600I 5,ss0I 1_307I 401I 668
Qi  ° IIIMYEIUYI I 10,200] 9,200I 9,290I 2,153I 1,055I 1,426 ·
` ¢ EW €I`$€Y I 5,400 4,000I 4,000I 402I 126I 208
fI?$  I I——;.;.;.. I   I
H  1 I , I , _ ` , 5,319I 6,159I 4,207
’ I ._ I I I I I

  `.
6* ~ Itcatucley Extervzslioa Circular N0. 204 -l 
may be made. Five states have been classed as "Early," Aly   Nadi
bama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The “Second _?  In F
Early" group includes Arkansas, North Carolina, South Cam.   in F
lina, Tennessee and Virginia. The "lntermediate" states ln.  
clude Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland and New J erseyg  
Acreage iigures for the "Late" states were not obtained pi-toy  
to 1920 but Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsyl.   Mu,
vania have been grouped together to show acreage trends since   ""
that time.   J
In Figure I1 the actual acreages, grouped according to har.  gg
vest periods, are indicated by the heavy, curved lines and thc   e
trendsl in acreage, for the ten year period 1917-1926, are indi-  
cated by the lighter, straight lines. A decided increase in straw.  
berry acreage is shown in all except the late producing states,   J
The early acreage has shown a fairly steady increase since  i·
1919, altho prior to that date a very marked decrease took place.  , ·
The second early acreage has increased much more rapidly  A
except that more violent fluctuations have taken place. The ;
recent decrease in acreage in that group may be an attempt at  `
readjustment from over-expanded acreage in 1922 to 1924.  1
The intermediate acreage also has increased but with less ,;
rapidity than that of the second early group and with smaller Y  ,,,,3;
iiuctuations since 1919. This group ot states, like the others TQ  gift}
saw decreases in strawberry acreage in the two seasons prior to    
that year.  
K<·ntu<·ky’s acreage does not show up we`l in Figure ll bf-   perq
cause of the scale used but the proportionate increase in this   age
State has been almost identical with that for the intermediate   stra
group in which it is placed. Kentucky has just about kept step  ,_ peri
with her competitors in the general development of the iiicliistrr  
lt may bc asked, VVhy has acreage tluetuated so much illllll   Pla
year to year? ls it due to the influence of price? Acreaat  T pre
· L _ ratlier than production figures purposely have been used in 0l‘1th·
from Kentucky. Obviously, production changes in this State   Iualvke
alone must be large 111 order to influence the 111EL1'l§€l3 materially   urges
but when combined with corresponding changes in other statgg   17 gjg
the eiiect may be marked. Production changes in competing   two 0
states should guide the action of Kentucky producers and pro.   1050
. . . .   ’-
duction figures of other regions therefore are important,   peopk
  ville,
QUALITY   (
Regardless of the keenness of competition, quality is a factor   _i
which will place any strawberry producing region in a favorable   mat]
. . , -.1 . W
light. The producer having a product of the highest quality  F3. md L
E has a distinct advantage. Some of the growers in strawberry   adm]
producing sections of Kentucky are not giving as much atteu-   wel`:
tion to cultural practices as is necessary for best results. Rigid  S DMN
inspection at the car door is essential but ia itself does not im-  ? *6010
prove the quality of berries. Real quality improvement must  j The F
come thru cultural and handling practices.  _ land 2
f as thi
KENTUCKY’S MARKET POSITION  V appa-
gm-awbcl-1-jes gpg highly perishable. The distance to market,  g in th
therefore, is an important factor in handling them. Kentuckyb  _ made,
 . fo` ~2
TABLE 3.-—PopuIation of the Fifteen Largest Cities in the U.S.  y I (
(1920 Census)   WY fi
New Ycrk City, New Your .............................................. 5,<;20,0-is  ¤ rim -
Chicago, Illinois .................................................................. 2,701,705 _ 
Plnladelrhie- Pgnnsylmiiia .............................................. 1,323,779  ; kets
Detroit. Michigan ·--······ . ...................................................... sis>2,<;7s 5  in P
Cleveland, Ohio .................................................................. 796,841  Q
St, Louis, Missouri ............................................................ 772,897  _ will
Boston, Massachusetts .............................,........................ 748,060   -
Baltimore, Maryland ............... . ........................................ 733,826   r
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania .................................................. 588,343  , perm
Los Angeles, Cailifornia .................................................... 576.673  . .
Buffalo- New Y°"k ····i . ...................................................... 506,775  · POW
San Francisco, California ..............................I................. 506,676  ‘ IS pg
` " ` Milwaukee, \Visconsin ...................................................... 457,147  ` qt t_
VVashington, D. C. ..._.....,.................................................... 437,571  ` ` ilk
Newark, New Jersey ..... . .......,......................................,.... 414,524  , nntti
-·"‘  i G- .
‘ 17,678,543 is XPI
i

   The Market Outlook for Kentucky Strawberries 11
  geegyepliical location in reference to the most important markets
  of this country is a point in her favor. The cities of the
  Northern and Eastern States and of Canada form the principal
 E markets for Kentucky strawberries. Table 3 lists the fifteen
 , largest cities in the United States with their total population of
  17,678,000 people, as shown by the census of 1920. All except _
  two of these cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles, are within
  1,250 miles of any point in Kentucky. Nearly 36% of the
 2 people living in these fifteen cities are within 500 miles of Louis-
 Q ville, Kentucky, and about 90% of them are within 1,000 miles.
  Growers in Arkansas and Missouri have an advantage in
  location with respect to such markets as Kansas City, St. Louis
 I and Minneapolis, and the Atlantic coast regions have a similar .
  advantage with respect to Eastern markets. Kentucky, how- .
  ever, has a distinct advantage with respect to such markets as
 it Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburg and possibly Cincinnati,
 P altho the latter city gets most of its strawberries from Tennessee.
  The average annual unloads of strawberries at Pittsburg, Cleve-
 Q land and Detroit during the years 1921-1925 were 28.6% as large g
  as those at New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia. The _
  apparent per capita consumption of berries is slightly greater `
it  in the smaller markets. Pittsburg, Detroit and Cleveland un-
 i_ loaded, on the average, during the five years, 1921-1925, one car
  for each 2,000 people. The three larger markets unloaded one
  car for each, 2,410 people during the same period. At the same
  time the average l. c. l. price to jobbers in the three large mar-
  kets was only 3/ 10 of a cent per quart higher than the average
  in Pittsburg and Cincinnati. Comparative prices in Detroit
  and Cleveland were not obtained.
  In parts of Kentucky the use of express refrigeration service
  permits a wider distribution in the sale of strawberries than is
 f possible when only freight service is available. Express service
  is particula.rly valuable in seasons when the strawberry crop in ·
 ;- states which normally supply the Eastern Markets is short, per-
,  mitting Kentucky growers to reach those markets profitably with
  express shipments.

 1 12 Kentucky Extension Circular N0. 204  
It should not be concluded that large cities are the only lm.   Own b
portant markets for strawberries. In 1922, Kentucky berries   ing 0,
went to more than 85 cities in 18 diiferent states and Canada,  iz [
Figure I. The small or medium sized cities of Northern   has be
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio ‘furnish··marketi outlets for mary   gng Z
Kentucky strawberries. In 1922 about 40% of Kentucky’S   agenc
strawberries went to cities of less than 250,000 inhabitantss and  `E age 0
in 1924 about 30% of the berries from Kentucky and North  T. thati
Tennessee went to cities of that size or smaller.4   to ant
 _ sente<
STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION AND COOPERATIVE MARKETING   large
Commercial strawberry production in Kentucky is almost  Qf livcsl
inseparably linked with cooperative marketing. Many people  ii N0Flli
l hardly realize that strawberry associations in this State are co-   b€1‘Sl
1 operative enterprises, they have developed so closely with the  i l
i iI1dI1Si3I'y.  i most
In 1907 and 1908, the impetus which really started Ken-  s Y¤€Hil
tucky on its career as a commercial strawberry state, was a   m€1`€`
desire on the part of an ambitious railroad freight agent to in-  Q COOP‘
crease the tonnage from his shipping point. To do this satis-   Umm]
factorily a sufficient acreage to permit shipping in carload lots —'  m th'
had to be assured. A market outlet then became necessary and  ; i
those farmers who grouped themselves together for mutual ad-  — fm i
vantage in production made plans for selling their product co-  » Ngml
operatively.5 Excepting strawberries grown near Louisville and  ` mcmi
Cincinnati, and sold in those cities, practically all of Kentuckyh  _` Efow
commercial crop is now marketed cooperatively.  `_ aps th
This, no doubt, is a healthy state of affairs but it carries >   
certain problems with it. Probably the very fact that organiza- A.  from
tion for selling has seemed necessary has held the associations  Z
. . . _   A ul
together in most cases. When troubles have arisen memben  2. thm
have not dropped out of the association and tried to sell tlitil  i maui
ii bcrigéyh Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 246-"The Marketing of Kentucky Slim"  in Iill til
* "Kentucky Nortli—Tennessee Strawberry Deal Season 1924"·Bui‘cai1 01   lll (l»
Agricultural Economics, U. S, Department of Agriculture. _  {
5For further information on the development of strawberry F-f§0“'I“g . gI`0\l
in Kentucky see Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bullciiii W  V

   The Market Outlook for Kentucky Strawberries 13
 I. Own berries but have formed a separate and competing market-
 . ing organization.
  During the past few years considerable thought and study
  has been devoted to membership problems of cooperative market-
  ing associations. Marketing associations are essentially sales
 i agencies for their members and are dependent upon the patron- _
  age of their members for existence. It is essential, therefore,
 V that the membership shall be kept in a frame of mind friendly
  to and enthusiastic about the association. This problem has pre-
2  sented itself to nearly all cooperatives in this country, from the
  large cotton and tobacco associations of the South to the smallest
,   livestock shipping association or cooperative creamery of the
.   Northern States. They feel the need of keeping their mem- _
i   bers better informed as to the affairs of the association.
,   Frequently it has been said that what cooperatives need
 is most is loyal members. This may be true but to be loyal the
,_  1 members must have more knowledge of the association than
a  1 merely the fact that they are bound by a contract to sell thru it.
l_ ig  Cooperative marketing association officials may well take the .~
S_ . membership into their confidence much more than has been done
ts  T in the past. · i
ld {  Kentucky strawberry associations have not been entirely A
d_   free from unrest and dissatisfaction among their members.
,0_  _ Neither have they always been as open and frank with their
ld   members as they might have been. In some of the associations `
as in  growers think of the manager much more as a local buyer than
  as their hired agent. Perhaps some of the managers forget, at
ies  Vjn times, that they are merely the employees of the association. It
Za.   Should not be construed that the managers are to take orders
ms   from any or all of the growers, in regard to association activities.
HS   A unincd plan of action is essential and it should be carried out
I .·  thru the board of directors. Each manager, however, should
lm  _ 1‘€Hlize that he is an agent for the association and that his success ·
mv-  " inthe job depends upon the results he is able to obtain, not alone
ner  1 in dollars and cents but also in personal satisfaction to the
   V; growers.

 ` 14 Kcntu_c7i·y Extension Circiilar N0. 20-1 I  
 
The manager of a small cooperative in Minnesota said   shoulé
recently, " It is not only our job to render to our members tim _?  templl
most efficient service possible but also to convince them that wt.   l
are doing it. " Frequently members do not recognize the beneiin   in 01‘(ll forms of articles of incorpora-
mm