2o8 COOPERATIVE MARKETING 



sign to brokers, a thing that the exchange never does. How- 

 ever, it is almost accurate to say with Mr. Powell that "to 

 be as near like the exchange system as possible is the lead- 

 ing argumentative asset of every important independent 

 association that seeks to build up a larger membership in 

 the citrus industry." 



There are a few growers with a large acreage who have 

 packing houses of their own, and are not merely members 

 of associations of growers. Some of these large growers 

 have established reputations with the trade which put them 

 in an exceptional marketing position, and they do not feel 

 the need of associating themselves with other producers for 

 the purpose of solving the marketing problems. 



The 13 per cent, listed as miscellaneous sales represents 

 that small group of growers who have as yet been unin- 

 fluenced by cooperation. These growers still market 

 through speculative buyers in practically the same manner 

 as before the opening of the cooperative era. They sell by 

 the pound all the fruit they can to buyers and consign the 

 remainder on commission. 



So the question naturally arises : If the California Fruit 

 Growers Exchange has achieved such signal success, why 

 do these outside interests refuse to aflSliate themselves with 

 it? The answer to this question goes to the heart of the 

 problem of cooperative effort. Why, therefore, did some 

 growers organize cooperative enterprises of their own in- 

 stead of joining the exchange system? And why do some 

 growers continue to hold aloof from cooperation alto- 

 gether? Unfortunately for the believers in the principles 

 of cooperation, these questions cannot be lightly brushed 

 aside as irrelevant, and honest answers to them strike at 

 the foundation itself of cooperative endeavor in the field 

 of agricultural industry. 



If the exchange system employed monopolistic tactics. 



