ceived by fanners. Of the remainder (some- 

 times referred to as the "marketing bill"), 35 

 cents was used to pay salaries and wages for the 

 workers involved, and 8 cents, the cost of pack- 

 aging. Transportation, depreciation, advertis- 

 ing, energy, and rent costs each accounted for 

 3.5 to 4.5 cents. About 6.5 cents was divided 

 among a large number of costs, including re- 

 pairs, insurance, professional services, prop>erty 

 taxes, and many other items. The remaining 3.5 

 cents represented before-tax profits. 



Consumer Value and Their 

 Food Dollars 



In conclusion, it appears that consumers 

 have benefitted fi-om very moderate increases in 

 retail food costs in recent years. Personal dispos- 

 able incomes have risen at a faster rate than 

 food costs and the percentage of income spent on 

 food has fallen. At the same time the farm share 

 of the consumer's dollar has steadily dechned 

 while the farm-to-retail margin has gradually 



increased. 



Do U.S. consumers get a good value for their 

 food dollars? Undoubtedly they do. Could it be 

 better? Of course it could, and it is probably 

 getting better, especially with the increased use 

 of information about nutrition and healthful- 

 ness of food products. Do farmers and marketers 

 receive fair values for their contributions? Prob- 

 ably so, at least if you base your conclusion on 

 the availability of adequate supplies of food of 

 adequate quality and in reasonable variety. In 

 addition, most would conclude that food market- 

 ing firms receive reasonable, though not ex- 

 travagant, returns for their investments. The 

 case for farmers is less clear; certainly their 

 profits are not excessive. For U.S. farmers 

 whose major occupation is farming, household 

 net farm incomes in 1991 averaged $10,228 

 fi"om gross cash farm income of $94,027 and 

 farm assets valued at $491,241 (USDA-ERS. 

 1993. Agricultural Income and Finance - Situ- 

 ation and Outlook Report. Economic Research 

 Service, USDA, AFO-49). 



%f# «f^ *f^ *fi» •^0 



r|% #1% #^ #1% r{% 



16 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1993 



