34 BULLETIN 1109, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table 8. — Retail prices of cranberries at 13 large markets in 1920. 

 [Total stores, 11,334.] 



City. 



Dates included, 1920. 



Number 



Retail 



of re- 



price 



ports in- 



per 



cluded. 



pound. 



2,410 



■ $0. 16 



2,907 



.159 



297 



.156 



491 



.157 



626 



.154 



596 



.152 



907 



.151 



563 



.162 



513 



.161 



603 



.158 



858 



.23 



563 



.199 



New York 



Chicago 



Milwaukee 



Indianapolis 



MLnneapons and St. Paul. 



Detroit 



Cincinnati 



Kansas City 



Omalia - 



Toledo 



Pittsburgh 



Columbus 



Sept. 27 to Oct. 9... 

 Oct. 11 to Oct. 23... 

 Oct. 25 to Oct. 30.. 



do 



Oct. 25 to Nov. 6... 



do 



Nov. 1 to Nov. 13.. 

 Nov. 8 to Oct. 20... 

 Nov. 1 to Nov. 13.. 

 Nov. 8 to Nov. 20.. 

 Nov. 15 to Nov. 27. 

 Nov. 22 to Dec. 4... 



ALL MARKETING EXPENSES. 



Table 9 gives a comparison of marketing expenses. It will be 

 noticed by this table that the grower receives 54 per cent of the con- 

 sumer's dollar for growing and packing the fruit. Although data are 

 meager concerning the percentage of the retail price which the 

 grower receives on other perishable fruits and vegetables, it is safe to 

 say that on the whole this percentage is well below the 50-cent mark. 



Transportation charges amounted to over twice the amount 

 charged by the cooperative associations. 



Table 9. — Expense ofmarlceting a barrel of a'anberries, 1920-21} 



Items. 



expense. | expense. 



Grower 



Cooperative marketing associations 2 



Advertistag 



Transportation 



Jobber 



Other wholesalers 



Retailer , 



Realized on barrel at retail , 



1 Based on a retail price of 1 8 cents a pound. 



2 Both local and central. 



Jobbers and other wholesalers charged for their services an amount 

 equal to the combined charges of the cooperative association and the 

 transportation agencies, while the retailer's margin amounted to 

 practically one-half the total marketing expense, yet it is doubtful if 

 the retailer's margin was sufficient to cover more than his actual 

 handling cost. 



The conclusion drawn from this study is that the cranberry grow- 

 ers have built up an efficient marketing organization marked by two 



